Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Mystery python devours three parrots at zoo | Main | Walrus »

August 20, 2007

Elvira Arellano deported

Elvira Arellano, who had been facing deportation since 2002, was finally deported after she emerged on Sunday from the Chicago church that was granting her sanctuary. [Guardian]

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00e54ee23c858834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Elvira Arellano deported:

» Secular Authorities Should Not Allow Churches to P from 40 Years in The Desert
The bigger picture has nothing to do with immigration or children. It has to do with the fact that federal, state, and local authorities allowed a church to grant her sanctuary. The idea of Church as sanctuary from law enforcement is a throwback t... [Read More]

Comments

No facing about it, Linds.

She's already down in Tijuana staying with a friend, determined to publicize her case from that side of the border, they say. The Chicago Rev. and his wife are guardians for her 8-year-old son, last seen crying behind them on a platform. The Rev. is going to attend the D.C. immigration rally on Sept. 12 to carry on her mission on this side of the border.

Sad, but surely she saw this coming when she left for LA to publicize her case. Sad for the boy too. I think there's going to be a lot of sad times ahead if families choose not to stay together when some get sent home.

I understand that immigration law separating children from parents is not a good thing. I'm not sure how to resolve it.

That being said, a bigger issue to my mind is the issue of churches providing sanctuary, and secular authorities allowing this when they know of it.

People can spout all the nonsense they want about it being a traditional role of the church, but this was specifically the sort of interference in the matters of governance that the founding fathers found abhorrent, and so separated church and state.

When someone publicly uses a church for sanctuary, the secular authorities should make a point of raiding the church.

That was my point about this when I blogged on this.

determined to publicize her case from that side of the border
_____________________________

Good!

I understand that immigration law separating children from parents is not a good thing. I'm not sure how to resolve it.

He is on his way, with adults now, to visit his mother in Mexico. As an 8-year-old, he is not working here, and belongs with his mother. He will still retain his citizenship, and can come back when job and educational opportunies are more pressing. She should not separate them to make a point; the boy is 8 years old and belongs with her. (I am not certain where the father is.) Not exactly the wisdom of Solomon needed to see you put your childs' needs first.

When someone publicly uses a church for sanctuary, the secular authorities should make a point of raiding the church. Absolultely not. You must respect the church as a higher place for good reason. You don't enter with guns, and you don't come in uninvited. This is America still, and our religious traditions of respect built us. Even in Palestine/Israel, authorities respected the church enough not to enter. Soldiers have no power there, rightly so. Can you imagine our world if basic religious respectis lost? *shudder*

Interesting separation of church and state issues...

"That being said, a bigger issue to my mind is the issue of churches providing sanctuary, and secular authorities allowing this when they know of it"

"When someone publicly uses a church for sanctuary, the secular authorities should make a point of raiding the church."

That is the secular authority’s prerogative. No law (other than general 5th amendment protections) protects these churches from being "raided" for harboring criminals (and even prosecuted).

This is exactly the way sanctuary has always worked. Historically, sanctuary is only a brief respite until facts can be discerned, mob justice averted, and spiritual guidance administered.

Manuel Noriega received a brief sanctuary in a Vatican enclave before surrendering to the authorities. The Palestinians also received sanctuary in the Orthodox church. Likewise this women.

In all cases the pursuers could have entered and arrested/detained the suspects. It was only political/moral pressure that dissuaded them.

It is easy to see how many secularists could resent this moral authority that is so often granted towards the Church.

I don't see a separation of church and state issue here, mudkitty. Or, to the degree that there is one, it actually works against the church, because by granting the church powers of sanctuary, it privileges the church over similarly-situated secular institutions.

I think the real issue here was a P.R. issue. The government undoubtedly (correctly) thought that sending armed police into a church over an illegal immigration case would have been a publicity nightmare.

You know, I have to agree that churches should not really be respected as shields against our law enforcement system, even though I am not at all a fan of what the government did here with the deportation.

She is now on her way to Communist Cuba for the purpose of exposing the breakup of family life.

Doesn't she know that emigrating from Cuba is illegal for the natives and that Communists could care less about family?

An illegal is an illegal, even in Mexico:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/01/miami_radio_host_wins_release.php

What is the difference between her, an economic refugee and a political refugee?

If Mexico's laws deny refuge why then does she and her government demand what they themselves deny others?

Armando Barreiro

The comments to this entry are closed.