RE: Religious objections to deportation policies

[Levinson, Sanford V]

I am taking the liberty of posting a column that I wrote in Sept. 2014  for the 
Al Jazeera Web site that touches on the shifting politics of religious freedom. 
 Perhaps we can even hope for some kind of detente between right and left 
(though I’m not holding my breath).  But Jeff Sessions is certainly drawing red 
lines that should provoke more full scale resistance by a newly invigorated 
alliance between the secular left and the committed religious w will remember, 
as is appropriate at the Passover season, that one has responsibilities to 
those who are the equivalent of  “strangers in the land of Egypt.”   (And, of 
course, I presume that our conservative friends take some pleasure in the new 
embrace by people like me of such decisions as US v. NY and other “new 
federalism” decisions as underpinning the resistance against the former 
states-rights buff Sessions.)

sandy

The new (religious) face of civil disobedience
A resurgent sanctuary movement may complicate the precepts of the Christian 
right
Al Jazeera online, available at  
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/religion-sanctuarymovementimmigrationrefugeespoverty.html
  September 7, 2014 6:00AM ET

by Sanford 
Levinson
How are the young refugees fleeing from violence in Central America connected 
to contraception?
In June’s Hobby Lobby decision, a sharply divided Supreme Court interpreted the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to require the exemption of an 
incorporated business owned by conservative Christians from the duty imposed by 
the Affordable Care Act to offer health insurance policies covering 
contraception. Hobby Lobby sparked a national discussion about the degree to 
which religious belief should mandate exemptions from complying with 
legislation. Unsurprisingly, the debate has divided sharply along liberal and 
conservative lines. Conservatives tend to endorse religious freedom and 
liberals emphasize — often using the language of democracy — the duty of all 
Americans to obey the law.
But different issues — from the children crossing our borders, fleeing 
oppressive circumstances in Central America, to the plight of poor people 
without regular access to medical care — are now complicating that divide.
The standard conservative responses, of course, haven’t disappeared. Many 
conservatives, typified by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, have labeled the Central 
American children “illegals” and demanded swift deportation. Another Texas 
conservative, Gov. Rick Perry, has vociferously refused to join the enhanced 
national Medicaid program. But it is becoming clearer that neither of these 
politicians, both carrying presidential ambitions, unequivocally speaks for 
conservatives. And interestingly, their critics increasingly speak the language 
of religious belief and obligation.
Support for the young refugees — and corresponding criticism of those calling 
for harsh treatment — has started coming from religious leaders who, looking 
beyond abortion and contraception, evoke their particular notions of divine 
commands to succor the poor and defenseless. At the end of April, The Christian 
Science Monitor 
reported
 on more than 250 evangelical leaders who had decamped on Congress to lobby 
representatives and senators to move toward immigration reform. John Carlson, 
an associate professor of religious studies at Arizona State University in 
Tempe, is quoted in the article as saying, “You’ve got all sort of theological 
and ethical traditions and foundational concepts that are concerned with the 
stranger in one’s midst.” Some of these leaders may be identifiable as 
liberals, but many more are not.
The efforts of these religious figures evoke the sanctuary movement of the 
1980s, during which many churches, citing a biblical tradition of sites of 
refuge, refused to turn over Central American refugees to police. Today, 
Arizona for many people has become identified with efforts to crack down on 
undocumented immigrants. But consider that two churches in Arizona, the 
Southside Presbyterian Church in 
Tucson
 and the University Presbyterian Church in 
Tempe,
 have declared themselves safe havens designed to protect such immigrants 
against deportation. Many of the strongest supporters of the prior sanctuary 
movement were Roman Catholic prelates who — in contemporary political terms, 
given the laser focus on abortion — would have almost automatically been 
assigned the conservative label.
It may be too optimistic to hope for a full-fledged truce in the culture war 

Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

[Hillel Y. Levin]

Judge Posner wrote a majority opinion in a 2012 case that helpfully narrows
the "harboring" issue a little bit. I include the case in my statutory
interpretation casebook. US v Costello, 666 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2012). I'm
not sure it would help a church or other religious person/entity, but it
may be worth taking a look at if the issue arises. The case involved a
woman who opened her house to her undocumented boyfriend, knowing that he
was unlawfully in the US. The majority held that this did not constitute
harboring.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Christopher Lund  wrote:

> On the harboring issue, I wrote a listserv post 10 years ago part of which
> may be relevant now.  In short, the harboring statute is broad; any shelter
> you give to an alien unlawfully present is harboring, even if you don’t
> intend to facilitate their unlawful presence.  Churches have harbored, and
> they have been prosecuted for harboring.  OLC in fact had an opinion back
> during the Reagan Administration addressing the issue, confirming that
> churches that house illegal aliens violate the harboring statute, and
> claiming that that they have no constitutional right of exemption.
>
>
>
> My analysis is below and my original listserv post is here:
> http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2006-March/021588.html.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Chris
>
> ___
>
> Christopher C. Lund
>
> Associate Professor of Law
>
> Wayne State University Law School
>
> 471 West Palmer St.
>
> Detroit, MI  48202
>
> l...@wayne.edu
>
> (313) 577-4046 (phone)
>
> Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/
>
> Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=36340
>
>
>
>
>
> . . . I was curious about this too, so I took a look at 8 U.S.C. § 1324,
> which is
>
> the current statute.  Under Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), anyone who
>
> “conceals, harbors, or shields [an illegal alien] from detection,” commits
> a
>
> felony punishable by up to five years in prison.  I looked at some of the
>
> cases, and I was astonished at the breadth this statute has been given.
> The
>
> general rule is that “merely providing shelter to an alien” is enough to
>
> constitute harboring under the statute.  United States v. Lopez, 521 F.2d
>
> 437, 439 (2d Cir. 1975); see also United States v. Acosta, 531 F.2d 428,
> 430
>
> (9th Cir. 1976) (rejecting the idea that the statute’s requirement of
>
> harboring requires “clandestine sheltering,” and instead construing
> “‘harbor
>
> to mean ‘afford shelter to’”).  The logic of these cases is simple:
> “Because
>
> affording shelter to an illegal alien is conduct which by its nature tends
>
> to substantially facilitate the alien’s remaining in the United States
>
> illegally, providing shelter to illegal aliens constitutes harboring
> illegal
>
> aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).”  United States v. Balderas,
> 91
>
> Fed. Appx. 354, 355, 2004 WL 605233, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2004).
>
>
>
> OLC has an opinion from 1983, “Church Sanctuary for Illegal Aliens.”  7
> U.S.
>
> Op. OLC 168, 1983 WL 160504.  It concludes, “The housing of illegal aliens
>
> by churches would appear to be a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)
>
> [editor’s note: the statute has since been reorganized, which is why the
>
> numbers are slightly off], which forbids the harboring of illegal aliens.
>
> Although the churches alert the INS that they are offering the aliens
>
> shelter, the most recent case law rejects the notion that harboring must
>
> involve actually hiding the alien or otherwise ‘clandestine’ activity.”
>
>
>
> The breadth of the statute was initially tempered by the fact that the
>
> statute required actual knowledge – the putative violator had to actually
>
> know the recipient of assistance was an illegal alien for the statute to
>
> apply.  But that was changed in 1986 – reckless disregard of an alien’s
>
> status is now enough.  I imagine that most of the Catholic relief houses
>
> operating along the border are consciously aware of a substantial
>
> possibility that they are housing illegal aliens, so I think it’s clear
> that
>
> – even as the statute exists today – they are violating it.
>
>
>
> As for the proposed changes – with the broad interpretations given the
>
> notion of “harboring” (which seems to be a far more easily constrained
>
> concept than “assisting”), I can only assume that the proposed statute
> would
>
> be even more of a threat to religious and secular groups trying to provide
>
> for immigrant populations.
>
>
>
> By the way, Rep. King’s assertion that "no priest, nun, social worker, or
>
> volunteer has ever been arrested or will be arrested" seems incorrect.  In
> United States v.
>
> Aguilar, 883 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1989), for example, the Ninth Circuit
>
> affirmed the conviction of Father Anthony Clark and several other people
>
> from Sacred Heart Church that were involved in the sanctuary movement for
>
> violating 8 U.S.C. § 

RE: Religious objections to deportation policies

[Christopher Lund]

On the harboring issue, I wrote a listserv post 10 years ago part of which may 
be relevant now.  In short, the harboring statute is broad; any shelter you 
give to an alien unlawfully present is harboring, even if you don’t intend to 
facilitate their unlawful presence.  Churches have harbored, and they have been 
prosecuted for harboring.  OLC in fact had an opinion back during the Reagan 
Administration addressing the issue, confirming that churches that house 
illegal aliens violate the harboring statute, and claiming that that they have 
no constitutional right of exemption.

My analysis is below and my original listserv post is here:  
http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2006-March/021588.html.

Best,
Chris
___
Christopher C. Lund
Associate Professor of Law
Wayne State University Law School
471 West Palmer St.
Detroit, MI  48202
l...@wayne.edu
(313) 577-4046 (phone)
Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/
Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=36340


. . . I was curious about this too, so I took a look at 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which 
is
the current statute.  Under Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), anyone who
“conceals, harbors, or shields [an illegal alien] from detection,” commits a
felony punishable by up to five years in prison.  I looked at some of the
cases, and I was astonished at the breadth this statute has been given.  The
general rule is that “merely providing shelter to an alien” is enough to
constitute harboring under the statute.  United States v. Lopez, 521 F.2d
437, 439 (2d Cir. 1975); see also United States v. Acosta, 531 F.2d 428, 430
(9th Cir. 1976) (rejecting the idea that the statute’s requirement of
harboring requires “clandestine sheltering,” and instead construing “‘harbor
to mean ‘afford shelter to’”).  The logic of these cases is simple: “Because
affording shelter to an illegal alien is conduct which by its nature tends
to substantially facilitate the alien’s remaining in the United States
illegally, providing shelter to illegal aliens constitutes harboring illegal
aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).”  United States v. Balderas, 91
Fed. Appx. 354, 355, 2004 WL 605233, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2004).

OLC has an opinion from 1983, “Church Sanctuary for Illegal Aliens.”  7 U.S.
Op. OLC 168, 1983 WL 160504.  It concludes, “The housing of illegal aliens
by churches would appear to be a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)
[editor’s note: the statute has since been reorganized, which is why the
numbers are slightly off], which forbids the harboring of illegal aliens.
Although the churches alert the INS that they are offering the aliens
shelter, the most recent case law rejects the notion that harboring must
involve actually hiding the alien or otherwise ‘clandestine’ activity.”

The breadth of the statute was initially tempered by the fact that the
statute required actual knowledge – the putative violator had to actually
know the recipient of assistance was an illegal alien for the statute to
apply.  But that was changed in 1986 – reckless disregard of an alien’s
status is now enough.  I imagine that most of the Catholic relief houses
operating along the border are consciously aware of a substantial
possibility that they are housing illegal aliens, so I think it’s clear that
– even as the statute exists today – they are violating it.

As for the proposed changes – with the broad interpretations given the
notion of “harboring” (which seems to be a far more easily constrained
concept than “assisting”), I can only assume that the proposed statute would
be even more of a threat to religious and secular groups trying to provide
for immigrant populations.

By the way, Rep. King’s assertion that "no priest, nun, social worker, or
volunteer has ever been arrested or will be arrested" seems incorrect.  In 
United States v.
Aguilar, 883 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1989), for example, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the conviction of Father Anthony Clark and several other people
from Sacred Heart Church that were involved in the sanctuary movement for
violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).  You can find other examples in
Gregory A. Loken & Lisa R. Babino, Harboring, Sanctuary, and the Crime of
Charity Under Federal Immigration Law, 28 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 119
(1993).


From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Saperstein, David
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:07 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Subject: Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

I presume there would have to be actual government  action against the 
congregation  first and then a RFRA defense would be appropriate..like the wash 
D.C. case where it worked to maintain a feeding program.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, 
"jeremy.mall...@gmail.com" 
> wrote:

Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

[Marc Stern]

I should add that the obvious basis of a challenge in the third scenario is the 
fourth amendment, unless the agents have a warrant in which the RFRA challenge 
would be based on an objection to any deportation of a person not guilty of 
some crime. Hard to imagine such a challenge succeeding.

Marc Stern
General Counsel
AJC
212  891 1480
646 287 2606(cell)




On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:07 AM, Saperstein, David 
> wrote:

I presume there would have to be actual government  action against the 
congregation  first and then a RFRA defense would be appropriate..like the wash 
D.C. case where it worked to maintain a feeding program.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, 
"jeremy.mall...@gmail.com" 
> wrote:

I am in contact with a coalition of congregations in Cambridge, Mass., that is 
planning to offer sanctuary in line with the third scenario. I am unaware of 
any examples yet, but I will be sure to drop a note here in case it does arise.

Jeremy Mallory


On Mar 28, 2017 at 5:31 AM, mailto:martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:

Alan:  The first two issues won't (yet) arise because, as far as I know, the 
law does not require any private persons -- or cities, for that matter -- to 
assist DHS with its removal proceedings.  There are no "obligations to 
disclose" information about immigration status, in particular.  (All that 8 USC 
1373(a) does is to prohibit cities from prohibiting their own employees from 
providing such info to the feds if they so choose.)

I'm also not aware of any cases involving your third scenario, in which (as I 
understand it) a church harbors a removable alien and refuses to allow 
immigration officials to enter the facilities to arrest the individual.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Alan E Brownstein 
> wrote:

Has anyone written anything about (or given some thought to) the possibility of 
RFRA being employed to challenge the federal government's deportation policies.


For example, might a professor or registrar at a private school be permitted to 
assert RFRA as a defense to a federal law requiring her to seek and disclose 
the immigration status of students?


Could a "sanctuary city" assert that it is relieving any of its employees from 
any obligation to disclose information about the immigration status of persons 
within the jurisdiction to federal immigration authorities if it would violate 
their religious beliefs to do so? Might the city argue that such an order 
complies with federal law because it is mandated by RFRA?


May a church provide sanctuary to an undocumented refugee at risk of 
deportation and assert a RFRA claim to avoid prosecution for doing so? The 
church would assert it is prohibited by its beliefs from denying sanctuary in 
these circumstances.


I recognize, of course, that successfully asserting a substantial burden on 
religious exercise only shifts the burden to the government to justify its 
actions under strict scrutiny.


Alan Brownstein

___
To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

___ To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, 
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that 
messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can 
subscribe to the list and read messages that are p
___
To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ucla.edu_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_religionlaw=DwICAg=UT72XLgLSquXuWqngwXwRw=g1VX3BoZB_unYQxCiACrWJfXLfLiNC1KjpGKsGtdK5Y=btA3ZixBXmFw87yJGZ4JJ7E2B1BTbGAc_WV25xSRSp0=P-7-FYBIs1OPFHYgHSRYfU4WLqdNl1br771GvyfnWQQ=

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 

Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

[Marc Stern]

Before RFRA, the issue was litigated under Sher Bert in the ninth circuit-
I believe a presbyterian church in Tucson. I will dig up the cite when I get to 
the office. As I recall, the church lost.

Marc Stern
General Counsel
AJC
212  891 1480
646 287 2606(cell)




On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:07 AM, Saperstein, David 
> wrote:

I presume there would have to be actual government  action against the 
congregation  first and then a RFRA defense would be appropriate..like the wash 
D.C. case where it worked to maintain a feeding program.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, 
"jeremy.mall...@gmail.com" 
> wrote:

I am in contact with a coalition of congregations in Cambridge, Mass., that is 
planning to offer sanctuary in line with the third scenario. I am unaware of 
any examples yet, but I will be sure to drop a note here in case it does arise.

Jeremy Mallory


On Mar 28, 2017 at 5:31 AM, mailto:martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:

Alan:  The first two issues won't (yet) arise because, as far as I know, the 
law does not require any private persons -- or cities, for that matter -- to 
assist DHS with its removal proceedings.  There are no "obligations to 
disclose" information about immigration status, in particular.  (All that 8 USC 
1373(a) does is to prohibit cities from prohibiting their own employees from 
providing such info to the feds if they so choose.)

I'm also not aware of any cases involving your third scenario, in which (as I 
understand it) a church harbors a removable alien and refuses to allow 
immigration officials to enter the facilities to arrest the individual.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Alan E Brownstein 
> wrote:

Has anyone written anything about (or given some thought to) the possibility of 
RFRA being employed to challenge the federal government's deportation policies.


For example, might a professor or registrar at a private school be permitted to 
assert RFRA as a defense to a federal law requiring her to seek and disclose 
the immigration status of students?


Could a "sanctuary city" assert that it is relieving any of its employees from 
any obligation to disclose information about the immigration status of persons 
within the jurisdiction to federal immigration authorities if it would violate 
their religious beliefs to do so? Might the city argue that such an order 
complies with federal law because it is mandated by RFRA?


May a church provide sanctuary to an undocumented refugee at risk of 
deportation and assert a RFRA claim to avoid prosecution for doing so? The 
church would assert it is prohibited by its beliefs from denying sanctuary in 
these circumstances.


I recognize, of course, that successfully asserting a substantial burden on 
religious exercise only shifts the burden to the government to justify its 
actions under strict scrutiny.


Alan Brownstein

___
To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

___ To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, 
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that 
messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can 
subscribe to the list and read messages that are p
___
To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ucla.edu_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_religionlaw=DwICAg=UT72XLgLSquXuWqngwXwRw=g1VX3BoZB_unYQxCiACrWJfXLfLiNC1KjpGKsGtdK5Y=btA3ZixBXmFw87yJGZ4JJ7E2B1BTbGAc_WV25xSRSp0=P-7-FYBIs1OPFHYgHSRYfU4WLqdNl1br771GvyfnWQQ=

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

[Saperstein, David]

I presume there would have to be actual government  action against the 
congregation  first and then a RFRA defense would be appropriate..like the wash 
D.C. case where it worked to maintain a feeding program.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, 
"jeremy.mall...@gmail.com" 
> wrote:

I am in contact with a coalition of congregations in Cambridge, Mass., that is 
planning to offer sanctuary in line with the third scenario. I am unaware of 
any examples yet, but I will be sure to drop a note here in case it does arise.

Jeremy Mallory


On Mar 28, 2017 at 5:31 AM, mailto:martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:

Alan:  The first two issues won't (yet) arise because, as far as I know, the 
law does not require any private persons -- or cities, for that matter -- to 
assist DHS with its removal proceedings.  There are no "obligations to 
disclose" information about immigration status, in particular.  (All that 8 USC 
1373(a) does is to prohibit cities from prohibiting their own employees from 
providing such info to the feds if they so choose.)

I'm also not aware of any cases involving your third scenario, in which (as I 
understand it) a church harbors a removable alien and refuses to allow 
immigration officials to enter the facilities to arrest the individual.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Alan E Brownstein 
> wrote:

Has anyone written anything about (or given some thought to) the possibility of 
RFRA being employed to challenge the federal government's deportation policies.


For example, might a professor or registrar at a private school be permitted to 
assert RFRA as a defense to a federal law requiring her to seek and disclose 
the immigration status of students?


Could a "sanctuary city" assert that it is relieving any of its employees from 
any obligation to disclose information about the immigration status of persons 
within the jurisdiction to federal immigration authorities if it would violate 
their religious beliefs to do so? Might the city argue that such an order 
complies with federal law because it is mandated by RFRA?


May a church provide sanctuary to an undocumented refugee at risk of 
deportation and assert a RFRA claim to avoid prosecution for doing so? The 
church would assert it is prohibited by its beliefs from denying sanctuary in 
these circumstances.


I recognize, of course, that successfully asserting a substantial burden on 
religious exercise only shifts the burden to the government to justify its 
actions under strict scrutiny.


Alan Brownstein

___
To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

___ To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, 
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that 
messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can 
subscribe to the list and read messages that are p
___
To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ucla.edu_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_religionlaw=DwICAg=UT72XLgLSquXuWqngwXwRw=g1VX3BoZB_unYQxCiACrWJfXLfLiNC1KjpGKsGtdK5Y=btA3ZixBXmFw87yJGZ4JJ7E2B1BTbGAc_WV25xSRSp0=P-7-FYBIs1OPFHYgHSRYfU4WLqdNl1br771GvyfnWQQ=

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; 

Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

[jeremy . mallory]

 
 
I am in contact with a coalition of congregations in Cambridge, Mass., that is 
planning to offer sanctuary in line with the third scenario. I am unaware of 
any examples yet, but I will be sure to drop a note here in case it does arise. 
 
 
 
 

 
Jeremy Mallory  
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Mar 28, 2017 at 5:31 AM,   (mailto:martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
> Alan:The first two issues won't (yet) arise because, as far as I know, 
> the law does not require any private persons -- or cities, for that matter -- 
> to assist DHS with its removal proceedings.There are no "obligations to 
> disclose" information about immigration status, in particular.(All that 8 
> USC 1373(a) does is to prohibit cities from prohibiting their own employees 
> from providing such info to the feds if they so choose.) 
>
>  
> I'm also not aware of any cases involving your third scenario, in which (as I 
> understand it) a church harbors a removable alien and refuses to allow 
> immigration officials to enter the facilities to arrest the individual.   
>  
>  
>
>  
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Alan E Brownstein  
>   wrote:
>  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >
> > Has anyone written anything about (or given some thought to) the 
> > possibility of RFRA being employed to challenge the federal government's 
> > deportation policies.
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > For example, might a professor or registrar at a private school be 
> > permitted to assert RFRA as a defense to a federal law requiring her to 
> > seek and disclose the immigration status of students?
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Could a "sanctuary city" assert that it is relieving any of its employees 
> > from any obligation to disclose information about the immigration status of 
> > persons within the jurisdiction to federal immigration authorities if it 
> > would violate their religious beliefs to do so? Might the city argue that 
> > such an order complies with federal law because it is mandated by RFRA?
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > May a church provide sanctuary to an undocumented   refugee at risk of 
> > deportation and assert a RFRA claim to avoid prosecution for   doing so? 
> > The church would assert it is prohibited by its beliefs from denying 
> > sanctuary in these circumstances.
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I recognize, of course,   that successfully   asserting a substantial 
> > burden on religious exercise only shifts the burden to the government to 
> > justify its actions under strict scrutiny.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Alan Brownstein
> >
> >
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  ___
> >  To post, send message to  Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
> > (mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
> >  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >  
> >  Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> > private.Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
> > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
> > wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>  ___ To post, send message to 
> Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get 
> password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are p___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

[Marty Lederman]

Alan:  The first two issues won't (yet) arise because, as far as I know,
the law does not require any private persons -- or cities, for that matter
-- to assist DHS with its removal proceedings.  There are no "obligations
to disclose" information about immigration status, in particular.  (All
that 8 USC 1373(a) does is to prohibit cities from prohibiting their own
employees from providing such info to the feds if they so choose.)

I'm also not aware of any cases involving your third scenario, in which (as
I understand it) a church harbors a removable alien and refuses to allow
immigration officials to enter the facilities to arrest the individual.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Alan E Brownstein <
aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:

> Has anyone written anything about (or given some thought to) the
> possibility of RFRA being employed to challenge the federal government's
> deportation policies.
>
>
> For example, might a professor or registrar at a private school be
> permitted to assert RFRA as a defense to a federal law requiring her to
> seek and disclose the immigration status of students?
>
>
> Could a "sanctuary city" assert that it is relieving any of its employees
> from any obligation to disclose information about the immigration status of
> persons within the jurisdiction to federal immigration authorities if it
> would violate their religious beliefs to do so? Might the city argue that
> such an order complies with federal law because it is mandated by RFRA?
>
>
> May a church provide sanctuary to an undocumented refugee at risk of
> deportation and assert a RFRA claim to avoid prosecution for doing so? The
> church would assert it is prohibited by its beliefs from denying sanctuary
> in these circumstances.
>
>
> I recognize, of course, that successfully asserting a substantial burden
> on religious exercise only shifts the burden to the government to justify
> its actions under strict scrutiny.
>
>
> Alan Brownstein
>
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.