Jul
13
As adults, we have the responsibility to the kids in our world to lead by example, set appropriate boundaries and be Christ like in our choices. This morning, the following news report came to me over email.
“More than 40 percent of the nation’s estimated 10.8 million underage current drinkers (persons aged 12 to 20 who drank in the past 30 days) were provided free alcohol by adults 21 or older, according to a nationwide report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The study also indicates that one in 16 underage drinkers (6.4 percent or 650,000) was given alcoholic beverages by their parents in the past month.
“In far too many instances parents directly enable their children’s underage drinking – in essence encouraging them to risk their health and wellbeing,” said Acting Surgeon General Steven K. Galson, M.D., M.P.H, a rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service. “Proper parental guidance alone may not be the complete solution to this devastating public health problem – but it is a critical part.”
This fall, I encourage our churches to make a stand against alcohol and drug abuse by participating in Recovery Sunday, October 19, 2008. If adults take a stand and set the example, I fully believe that kids will respond when they are given expectations that reflect a walk with Christ and in turn this will impact our communities.
Jul
13
ISAAC Update- July 2008
Filed Under ISAAC Updates | Leave a Comment
Separating the wheat from chaff (Luke 3:17)
The term “sanctuary city” has no legal meaning or significance. It is a term that does not have a precise definition and, as a result, creates confusion and misunderstanding. The term “sanctuary” implies immunity from the law. As we will see, no state, county, or city can provide an unauthorized alien immunity from federal immigration law.
Facts about Immigration: Separating the wheat from chaff (Luke 3:17).
The “Sanctuary” City:
“There…is…no…sanctuary!”
“That does not compute Logan 5…”
Logan’s Run 1976
The term “sanctuary city” has no legal meaning or significance. It is a term that does not have a precise definition and, as a result, creates confusion and misunderstanding. The term “sanctuary” implies immunity from the law. As we will see, no state, county, or city can provide an unauthorized alien immunity from federal immigration law.
1. The historic roles between federal and state law enforcement
Before we try to define this elusive phrase, it is important to note that generally federal law trumps state law. See Art. VI, Sect. 6, United States Constitution. Additionally, the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354–55 (1976). Thus, no state, county, or city can offer legal immunity to an individual that has violated federal immigration law. Historically, there has been a clear division of duties between federal immigration officials and local law enforcement. A 2006 Congressional Research Service Report (“CRS”) summed the relationship this way:
“Congress defined our nation’s immigration laws in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq.), which contains both criminal and civil enforcement measures. Historically, the authority for state and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law has been construed to be limited to the criminal provisions of the INA; by contrast, the enforcement of the civil provisions, which includes apprehension and removal of deportable aliens, has strictly been viewed as a federal responsibility, with states playing an incidental supporting role.”
You can read the whole report here: http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2006,0912-crs.pdf. There are many reasons why some local law enforcement agencies and municipalities have been reluctant to take on the historically federal responsibility of detention and deportation. These local entities cite their lack of training, manpower, resources, money, the potential for civil rights violations, and the erosion of trust by the local community that such activities may cause.
Sanctuary in 1980s
In the late 1980s, the “sanctuary movement” occurred. During that time, there were some churches that provided sanctuary to thousands of unauthorized Central Americans that had fled the civil wars in their homelands. The “sanctuary movement” churches provided social services to these immigrants and engaged in various acts of civil disobedience. Some of these acts included actively hiding or harboring aliens or refusing to cooperate with federal authorities even if required them to do so by law. Read about it here:
http://www.newsanctuarymovement.org/build-tradition.htm
Also during this time, some states and municipalities passed various laws or implemented certain policies that restricted local law enforcement from performing historically federal functions. For example, in 1987, Oregon passed Statute §181.850, which prohibited state and local law enforcement personnel from using state money and equipment “for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.” The statute did not prohibit the exchange of information with federal immigration officials in order to verify an arrested individual’s immigration status nor did it prohibit the arrest of an undocumented immigrant pursuant to a federal warrant. Likewise, in 1989, San Francisco passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance. It prohibited city employees from helping immigration officials with immigration investigations or arrests unless such help is required by federal or state law or a warrant. You can read about it here:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/sanctuary_index.asp.
Legislative, Judicial, and Administrative responses
In 1996, Congress passed Section 434 of the Welfare Reform Act. It states in relevant part:
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.
A similar provision is found in Section 642 of the Immigration Reform Act. New York City challenged the law in federal court but the provision was upheld and is the current law today. See New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2nd Cir. 1999). It is important to note that this federal law does not require states, counties, or cities to inquire about immigration status or even report immigration status. Rather it merely prohibits those entities from specifically restricting their employees and agents from relaying such information immigration authorities.
In 1997, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that federal authorities cannot direct state or local law enforcement officials to administer or enforce a federal program. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 922 (1997). Thus, Congress cannot force state and local police agencies to enforce federal immigration law. As a result, the federal government has attempted to enter into certain agreements with local law enforcement agencies in order to administer immigration enforcement at the local level. See 8 U.S.C. §1357(g). These types of agreements are called “cooperation” agreements. According to U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (“ICE”), there are 55 such agreements with various local law enforcement agencies in 18 states across the country. Read it here: http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm.
Usage of the term “Sanctuary City”
Those cities that have opted not to inquire about their resident’s immigration status or not enter into “cooperation” agreements with federal immigration officials have been termed “sanctuary cities.” The 2006 CRS report states:
“Most cities that are considered sanctuary cities have adopted a “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy where they don’t require their employees, including law enforcement officers, to report to federal officials aliens who may be illegal present in the country.”
The CRS report then lists 32 cities as having such “sanctuary policies.” It is important to note that the CRS puts “sanctuary policy” in quotes because its definition is elusive.
For example, Austin, Texas is listed in the CRS Report as one of the “sanctuary cities.” Indeed, the city was sued by the parents of a slain woman who was killed by an illegal alien. The family claimed that Austin’s unofficial “sanctuary policy” contributed to her death. In the lawsuit, the city denied that it had such a policy and a federal judge later dismissed the lawsuit on various grounds.
See here:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/05/04/0504jailann.html
Irrespective of its denials and the outcome of the lawsuit, Austin is still considered a “sanctuary city” by some. Houston, Texas, on the other hand, does have a formal policy which forbids its police officers from inquiring about the immigration status of people they encounter. Some claim this makes it a “sanctuary city” as well.
See here: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4140457
Summary
As noted earlier, the term “sanctuary city” has no legal significance. It also does not have a precise definition. It is generally used to signify states, counties, or cities that don’t require their law enforcement officers to report the names of potential illegal aliens to federal officials.
It is also a phrase that has grown out of the convoluted relationship between federal and state agencies. The federal government cannot force local law enforcement to detain or deport illegal aliens since that is a federal function. The federal government and local authorities can enter into agreements which give those local agencies authority to enforce federal immigration law. Such agreements are, however, strictly voluntary. Currently, only 55 cities and counties in 18 states have entered into such agreements with the federal government.
A series of 1996 federal laws prohibits states, counties, and cities from restricting their employees from relaying information about someone’s immigration status to the proper federal authorities. The laws, however, do not require states, counties, and cities to report individual illegal aliens to the authorities. Finally, since immigration law is federally based, no state, county, or city can provide legal immunity to an individual in violation it.
Jul
13
Although the legislature does not meet until January 2009, important work continues this summer. In the following update are summaries of Lottery Privatization in Texas, Adult Basic Education and the Bible to be taught in public school classrooms.
Lottery Privatization in Texas
Over the past several years, cash-strapped states around the country have been approached with the idea of privatizing their lotteries. The idea is that a private company will pay a particular State up front for a license to operate the lottery for a set number of years. The company will operate the lottery during that period and recoup their investment and a return on its investment. Though to date, no state has agreed to sale their lottery.
In other words, similar to “payday loans”, private companies are trying to convince leaders of our State to accept a lump-sum payment of pennies on the dollar for future lottery sales, that may include casino style games if these companies are successful. Yes, casino style games!!!
Unfortunately, proposals from proponents of this “privatization” initiative in Texas, have advocated for the expansion of gambling in our state in the form of constitutionally prohibited games like Keno, VLTs, and other casino style games. In addition, they have recommended the expansion of the current lottery games to the Internet and other wireless devices. Alarmingly, a recent news article quoted a spokesman from the Lottery Commission that attributed the movement towards privatization and offering wireless lottery games to the Governor’s office.
A hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m., Wednesday, August 27, at the State Capitol to discuss lottery privatization. The Senate Committee on State Affairs and the Senate Finance Subcommittee on General Government Issues, in joint session, will take public testimony. The hearing will be held in room E1.036 (Finance Room) of the Capitol Extension.
Below links of committee members:
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/commit/c570/c570.htm
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/commit/c540/c540.htm
Adult Basic Education
Adult Basic Education, such as English language classes, has been ministry staple for Baptists for years. The role the church has played is critical due the gap in our education system in Texas.
The CLC continues to move forward on this issue in the public square. Shelton Green and Suzii Paynter met with the Commissioner of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) Robert Scott recently to discuss the state of Adult Basic Education. Commissioner Scott acknowledged the importance of English language proficiency, GED preparation and completion and assisting those who wish to continue their education in a nontraditional setting. The CLC is looking forward to working the TEA in the coming legislative session on Adult Basic Education.
Bible Bill Update
On Friday, July 18 the State Board of Education approved curriculum guidelines for two classes about the Bible to be taught in public school classrooms. The CLC was involved in the effort to pass a strong Bible in public schools bill for Texas. The bill signed into law by the governor contained CLC supported amendments requiring mandatory teacher training, affirmative religious liberty protections and oversight of textbooks and curriculum by the State Board of Education (SBOE). Such protections help to ensure, to the degree possible, the courses would be taught in an academic, non-devotional and constitutional manner
Under the law, the State Board of Education is charged with the task of developing state-wide curriculum guidelines that detail what the students are expected to learn called Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or TEKS. TEKS are developed for a wide range of classes and are designed to promote consistency of content in courses across Texas and insure all students learn what is required to pass state mandated tests. TEKS also alleviate local school districts from the burden of developing their own curriculum for each course. We believe it is especially important for a class so susceptible to unconstitutional or otherwise unacceptable course content that the state offer detailed guidance to the local districts. Unfortunately, the TEKS approved for these courses were relatively vague and lack the guidance necessary to help local school districts and teachers know what should be taught in these courses.
Moving forward, it is essential that the Texas Education Agency develop a rigorous and thorough teacher training program so that teachers know what content to teach, as called for in the law, which will help insure teachers are qualified and well equipped to teach these classes. Bible classes in public schools can be a very rewarding and education experience for students but all care must be taken to insure the classes are done in the right way and that the religious liberty of each student is protected.
Jul
13
A Word from Suzii- Improving Religious Freeedom Worldwide
Filed Under Director's Column, Religious Liberty | Leave a Comment
Dust off your thinking. Religious freedom is not just a history issue. We need 21st century voices in suppport of liberty for all humanity. I attended a Religion and Foreign Policy workshop recently in New York, sponsored by The US Council on Foreign Relations. A look at the status of religious freedom was provided by Paul Marshall* and an insightful reflection by Richard Sieple** chronicled both success and failures of promoting religious freedom worldwide. Today, religious freedom and religious persecution affect all religious groups – Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism as well as small religious groups like Baha’i, Jehovah’s Witness or Judaism.
It may come as a surprise to some people, but religious freedom is not an exclusively western achievement. Religious freedom can be found on every continent. Estonia and Hungary are among the freest countries in the world. In Marshall’s survey Japan, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Botswana, Mali, Namibia, Senegal and South Africa score better than do Belgium, France, Germany and Greece.
Violations of religious freedom, likewise, happen worldwide. The most egregious persecuting states tend to be either communist (North Korea, China), nationalist (Burma, Eritrea) or radical Islamist (Iran, Saudi Arabia). In many cases restrictions on religion come from people who are members of the same general religious group, but who are a part of different subgroups. Those suffering restrictions include non-Orthodox Christians in Russia, Greece, and Armenia or Shiite Muslims in Pakistan & Saudi Arabia. These patterns reflect restrictions on minority faith expressions by the majority group in most cases. Atheists and agnostics also suffer persecution, especially in Saudi Arabia.
As you might expect, religious freedom is very compatible with other civil and human rights. As Marshall points out, “ the overlap is not simply a methodological artifact, but rather reflects the simple reality that religious freedom is necessarily a component of civil rights in general.” Religion is not only a transcendent endeavor, but an integral part of the realm of human freedom.
How does religious freedom make gains? In an exemplary reflection by Richard Sieple,** first US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Ambassador Sieple looks towards strategies that actually “move the human rights needle” in the right direction. He sees only a very selective environment that responds to the use of punishment where religious freedom violations are present. Success however does result when the promotion of religious freedom is coupled with a salient analysis of vested self interest. For example, religious freedom and security can develop as two sides of the same coin if a government sees that it will benefit by a more stable populace when religious freedom is an incentive for loyalty to the government. Also, Sieple found success in providing trade and economic officials with experiences highlighting positive effects of religious pluralism, human freedoms and vital (American) religious culture. He gave an example of officials who made a trade trip that included experiences with religious pluralism. Upon return to their country, they visited prisons where 37 Christians were incarcerated because of faith issues and soon 34 of the 37 were subsequently released.
The inclusion of religious leaders in to the discussion of foreign policy is providing fertile ground for productive discussions and creative thinking towards inspiring and providing this essential freedom to the world. Many of you find yourselves as citizens of the world, in business, medicine, government, trade, missions, ministry and pastoral service. Your voice is needed to reflect and speak about the importance of religious liberty for all humanity. Religious liberty is a critical but fragile freedom. The Council on Foreign Relations has an initiative to engage religious leaders in this and other foreign policy issues. You are invited to join this vital work by contacting Marjorie Branch at outreach@cfr.org.
*Author, Religious Freedom in the World, Rowan & Littlefield 2008
** Founder, Institute for Global Engagement. Author, Religion and Security: The New Nexus in International Relations, Rowan & Littlefield, 2004.
Jul
13
Ethics In Action- Faith-Based Initiatives
Filed Under Ethics In Action, Religious Liberty | Leave a Comment
One of the most contentious religious liberty issues in the past several years has been government aid to religious entities that provide social services. The most noticeable effort to promote such aid has been through the president’s Faith-Based Initiative. For many, government funds for religious-based social services put two heartfelt desires at odds; to promote ministering to the least of these among us, and to uphold the value of religious liberty and the separation of church and state. While religious charities have received government grants for years, the recent Faith-Based Initiative has sought to change some essential rules governing the cooperation.
Over the last decade or so, Congress has debated many aspects of the issue. Of particular focus for some religious liberty advocates has been the right of religious entities to hire or fire employees on the basis of religion whose positions are funded by tax dollars. Religious entities and churches have the right to hire only those who share their beliefs when using their own funds such as tithes and offerings. Changes called for under the Faith-Based Initiative raises the question as to if that right is extended to service positions funded by government grants?
In July, a group of organizations working together as the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, sent a description of their concerns regarding the implementation of the Faith-Based Initiatives to both Senator McCain and Senator Obama. Their summary recites a short history of cooperation between the government and religious social service providers. The letter then addresses some problems the authors see in the current Faith-Based Initiative and urges both candidates to make reforms during the next administration. To read the letter and gain a greater understanding of a religious liberty issue being debated during this political season please click here.
Jul
13
Living the Christian Life- Religious Liberty
Filed Under Living the Christian Life, Religious Liberty | Leave a Comment
A fairly intense conversation regarding church-state relations is currently focused on the American founders’ “original intent.” Did the founders intend to guarantee religious liberty through an institutional separation of church and state or did they merely intend to keep one any religious viewpoint from becoming America’s “official religion”?
This debate is contexted in part by the struggle between secularists who believe that church and state should be separated by an impassible barrier and religious conservatives who depict separation of church and state as fiction constructed by liberal Supreme Court justices. Caught between these two polarities are diverse Baptists who have some sense of religious liberty as a Baptist distinctive but who might also lament the secularity of post-modern America and the loss of “the good old days” when public school children were asked to bow their heads for teacher-led prayers and Bible readings.
For Baptists who value religious liberty through separation of church state, it is always important to understand as clearly as possible what we mean by that phrase. Part of that understanding involves an honest quest for truth regarding original intent, and in particular, a way to evaluate fairly the contention that church-state separation is a myth. What should we make of the books, articles, and websites which claim that the founders really intended to establish a “Christian America”? Through a maze of alleged quotations from the founders themselves to this effect, how can we find our way to some sense of confidence about the founders’ true original intent? Church-state scholar Derek Davis examines one website line by line with the not-so-surprising conclusion that most of the author’s “quotes” are misquoted or so wrenched from their original contexts that the conclusions drawn are ill founded.
>> Read More (pdf)