RE: Religious objections to deportation policies

[Levinson, Sanford V]

ons played in 
its passage. In his book “Bill of the Century: The Epic Battle for the Civil 
Rights Act,” journalist Clay Risen persuasively argues that the bill would have 
been doomed without the efforts not only of African-American churches such as 
those identified with Martin Luther King Jr. but also of such bastions of 
mainstream sensibility as the Episcopal Church. He tells stories of Catholic 
bishops meeting conservative Republican senators in order to suggest that it 
was basically a religious obligation to vote for the legislation.
Most Americans have no memory of those days, when liberals and conservatives, 
secularists and the religious came together to overcome the terrible legacy of 
racial oppression. Of course, the issues posed 50 years ago are scarcely absent 
today. Religious leaders and politicians who take their religion seriously are 
increasingly speaking out about immigration and the plight of the poor. One can 
imagine that at least some of the verbal support for the Central American 
refugees will be followed by a revival of the civil disobedience attached to 
the sanctuary movement. Churches, synagogues and mosques might simply refuse to 
obey demands that they turn over undocumented immigrants to state or federal 
officials attempting to deport them. Laws are not self-executing; they 
ultimately rely on the willingness of ordinary people to do what the law 
commands. Otherwise, they become what James Madison notably described as mere 
“parchment barriers” that have little effect on society other than 
demonstrating the limits of the law.
Conservatives and liberals might find themselves rethinking some of their views 
about the meaning of religious freedom and the responsibilities of good 
citizenship. But the fact that the spectrum of issues under debate is moving 
well beyond abortion and contraception might serve to generate a far more 
cogent discussion than the one Americans have become accustomed to having. 
That’s a start in diminishing the toxic polarization of U.S. politics. At the 
very least, one will have to disagree with one’s opponents on specific 
issue-related grounds rather than simply denounce them as religious fanatics or 
as secularists who reject God.


From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:19 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

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 
<dsaperst...@rac.org<mailto:dsaperst...@rac.org>> 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<mailto:jeremy.mall...@gmail.com>" 
<jeremy.mall...@gmail.com<mailto: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 
<aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu<mailto: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 statu

Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

[Hillel Y. Levin]

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-bounces@
> lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Saperstein, David
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:07 AM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
> *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" <
> 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,  <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 <
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ucla.edu_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_religionlaw=DwMFaQ=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
> Religionla

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 <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
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<mailto:jeremy.mall...@gmail.com>" 
<jeremy.mall...@gmail.

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.

Religious objections to deportation policies

[Alan E Brownstein]

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.