In 2011, the State of Alabama passed the most restrictive immigration law in the country. A specific section of the bill made it illegal to harbor undocumented immigrants in any form, meaning that anyone in the country illegally could not seek refuge in a church. It also meant that anyone that was caught helping these immigrants could be subject to criminal charges. According to Mobile, Alabama’s archbishop, this law would make it illegal for undocumented immigrants to practice their religion. Bishop Robert J. Baker of the Catholic Diocese of Birmingham claims that the law, “aims to shut the doors of our churches and social ministries, against our wills, to a whole class of people, denying them access to such basic human needs as food, clothing, shelter, and, most importantly, worship of God.”
Mobile Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi also claims that the law, “makes it illegal for a Catholic priest to baptize, hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, and undocumented immigrant. Nor can we encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass.” Church officials point out that their institution is not in charge of boarder security or who is allowed to remain in the country, but once those people are in their community, the church has a responsibility to connect them to God. Several religious institutions as well as the US Justice Department brought legal challenges against the law, eventually reaching the Supreme Court. However, in 2013 the Court declined to hear the case, meaning that the Court has yet to rule in its constitutionality.
One could approach the constitutionality of this law from two perspectives, one from the eyes of the undocumented immigrants, and one from the eyes of the church. The Constitution of the United States was designed to protect its citizen’s rights from the government, but this law brings up the question about whether or not those rights extend to non-citizens. If these illegal immigrants were in the country legally, this law would most certainly be a violation of their rights. I would argue that the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion should extend to these immigrants.
The Constitution was meant to be a recognition of human rights, and whether or not these people are in the country illegally, they are still human. Therefore, they should enjoy the same protections of religious freedom that American citizens do. If we apply the Sherbert Test, it clearly supports that this is a violation of the free exercise of religion. These immigrants certainly have a sincere belief in their Christian faith, and the government action of preventing churches from giving them service certainly is a substantial burden. There definitely is a compelling state interest in enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, but I believe that there is a less restrictive means to accomplish that goal. Other states seem to manage enforcement of their immigration laws without attacking freedom of religion, so I see no need for Alabama to continue this practice. However, this does raise a slippery slope concern. Someone might decide to form a church with the sole goal of shielding undocumented immigrants from law enforcement.
This law is also an assault on the church’s freedom of religion. Churches in Alabama have a religious obligation to help anyone that seeks them out find God, including undocumented immigrants. This law would mean that if the church were to offer religious services to these immigrants, they could face criminal charges themselves. This law essentially makes a major pillar of the Christian faith illegal, which is a clear violation of their freedom of religion. Using the Sherbert Test for the church also supports this. The church and its members certainly have a sincere religious belief and facing criminal charges for practicing a major pillar of their faith is definitely a substantial burden on the church’s ability to act on their beliefs. Again, there is a compelling state interest to enforce immigration policy, however there definitely is a less restrictive means to accomplish that goal. This immigration law definitely represents a major restriction on the free exercise of religion of both the 120,000 illegal immigrants in the State of Alabama, but also the churches that would open their doors to these people and face criminal charges for it.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/new-immigration-law-makes-christian-charity-illegal-say-church-leaders
5 comments:
Like Max, I both agree and disagree with the arguments presented in this post. In terms of a compelling state interest for immigration, I do believe this exists. Furthermore, I think it is a bit of an overreach to generally assume the Constitutional right of free exercise is guaranteed for individuals illegally in the country, simply because they are human. While I acknowledge that the issue is complex, I think the rights of illegal immigrants must refer back to prior precedents. However, I agree with the argument in support of the churches directly. The claim that their religious beliefs are being limited is present, as they are not allowed to help those around them. However, I am not sure a court would rule that this must be preserved over the compelling state interest. Thus, since the direct question is in terms of the illegal immigrants, I do not think a court would overturn the law on the grounds of free exercise of religion.
Some would argue that illegal aliens dont have constitutional rights because they aren't US citizens, and while they may have human rights they arent afforded the same protections and guarantees outlined by the US Constitution as would be for a US citizen. Rather, I would argue that this law isn't only disrespecting the immigrant's natural rights and potentially their First Amendment rights, but also it is violating the church's rights and the way that they function and operate. Churches are supposed to be borderless and blind to immigration status, simply there to help the community and people. Alabama in creating this law is in fact infringing on the free exercise of specifically Roman Catholic parishes from helping those in need.
I agree with what Max and Molly have to say, as it is very complicated to guarantee American rights to those who are not legally American. The church argument, however, is very valid, especially since the goal of many religions is that in order to ascend into heaven, they must invite all and even encourage people to join their faith. Turing those down from faith because they are undocumented goes against Christianity as a whole.
If I could know more information about the neutrality of this law, I think I could be able to establish a more concrete opinion. Does this law apply to all religious "churches" including mosques and temples or does it only apply to Christian churches? I would also be curious to know the point of view of the churches directly and how much the acceptance of the non-American citizens would be a part of their religion.
I don't really see how the court could side with undocumented individuals because I don't think the Constitution can even be applied to them. The argument backing up the church is a better one, as one cannot invalidate a religious practice under the First Amendment. If accepting undocumented people into their church is part of a religion, then who is the Supreme Court to decide whether that is important or not.
On a personal note, it upsets me that these people are being restricted from faith.
I believe it would be unconstitutional to deny these undocumented immigrants religious freedoms and rights. The U.S. Constitution is built upon the goals of protecting and ensuring anyone on U.S. territory is subject to basic fundamental inalienable rights, and are subject to punishment for criminal actions the same way a citizen would. They are also entitled to basic human rights, such as protection, shelter, freedom from discriminations, life, liberty, and equal treatment; all of which would be violated upon the implementation of the Alabama Law such as food, clothing, shelter, and to worship God. The primary objectives of religious institutions is to spread the teachings of God to all those who wish to worship. While these citizens are subject to deportation, in their time on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status, citizens and non-citizens are granted the same inalienable rights. Requiring the Church to close their doors to people desiring to worship, would be discriminating against the religious institutions. Nonetheless, a compelling state interest could justify this intrusion on the grounds of Churches providing shelter; an act of facilitating illegal immigrants and helping them hide from government deportation.
While I certainly agree with the notion that the law is inherently negative given the way it prevents churches from offering aid to those in need, be it spiritual or physical assistance, the main question is "Does this law prevent undocumented immigrants from practicing their religion?" Practically yes as long as they remain in the United States, though there is a possibility they could still practice under the guise of a legal resident. However, the purpose of the law is to determine the identities of illegal immigrants and deport them, which in turn removes them from the US and able to practice their faith in their native country. At least, this is the logic I can ascertain and understand for this law to be upheld as a constitutionally valid bill. Otherwise, it does have the effect of the rights of not just undocumented residents but also pastors, priests, and other religious officials by removing their right of engaging in their practice of preaching and compelling speech from them to turn in members of their flock.
Post a Comment