By Jack Jenkins
A Presbyterian church in Tuscon, Arizona is taking a bold stand in support of undocumented immigrants, announcing on Monday that, for the second time in three months, it will grant “sanctuary” to an undocumented immigrant currently facing deportation by federal officials.
Rosa Imelda Robles Loreto, an undocumented immigrant who is said to have a husband, two children (ages 9 and 11), a house, and no criminal history, is scheduled to be deported back to Mexico this Friday at the hands of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. But Rev. Alison Harrington, pastor of Southside Presbyterian Church in Tuscon, said Monday that she and her congregation disagree with ICE’s position, and plan to pressure immigration agents into delaying or rescinding the deportation order by housing Loreto in their church.
“We seek to follow Christ who commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves and also to offer radical hospitality to those in need,” Harrington told ThinkProgress. “The scriptures tell us to care for the widow and the orphan, and our immigration system creates widows and orphans every day … So we are standing by undocumented families and not allowing them to be torn apart.”
This is the second time since May that the tiny Tuscon congregation has taken in an undocumented immigrant in defiance of federal law. Earlier this year, the church made headlines for granting sanctuary to Daniel Neyoy Ruiz, an immigrant father who came from Mexico 14 years ago. He was detained and scheduled to be sent back to Mexico after being stopped by police for a smoky exhaust pipe, but, after spending a month under the care of Southside Presbyterian, ICE changed its position and granted Ruiz a one-year stay of his deportation order.
Read more at http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2014/08/06/3468449/new-sanctuary-movement/
22 Comments. Leave new
This “Pastor” needs to be arrested and defrocked. It won’t happen of course. However if these illegals were from Israel no doubt she would turn them in herself.
Just read her BIO on her churches website, quoting now “After graduation, she became a community organizer in the San Francisco Bay Area” Way to go louisville, just knocking them out of the park now arn’t you!
Why defrocked? And what makes you believe that the pastor would turn in an undocumented immigrant from Israel?
Southeast,
Yes defrocked, she is breaking the law. Given the left’s hostility to Israel in the PCUSA, I have no doubt
Would not surprise me at all if the folks in louisville are trying to figure out a way to make this “pastor” a hero.
She’s breaking the law by giving “sanctuary”. She should have charges lodged against her at the synod level. But we all know that’s a black hole.
The spirit of John Fife is still in Arizona!
I was about to post a comment about the hostile, non-christian readership of this publication, especially the one comment referring to people as “vermin” “scum” and “diseased.” Then I realized that it’s just one person posting all of them… Well, just in case someone else makes the same mistake that I did, thinking there are a lot of people with this attitude reading the Layman, I want to go on the record to say that the the love of God as understood by Presbyterians is equal for all people, from all countries, all races, all languages, all descendants of the same creation.
It may be that in fact the session is the legally responsible party. Nonetheless, what you believe would imply that people such as Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney should be defrocked – arrested for blocking a public right of way outside a Planned Parenthood clinic. Along with many thousand others, including a certain minister whose birthday in January is a national holiday.
And regarding an undocumented Israeli immigrant, you seem awfully certain about someone you have never met, especially when that person has a history of sheltering undocumented immigrants.
When your breaking the law by protecting people who broke the law by coming here illegally, you can throw out all the names you want. Bottom line she’s harbouring fugitives’ from the law.
I highly doubt she would be blocking a public right of way outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, most likely she would be opening the door.
Southeast,
When you’re breaking the law by protecting people who broke the law by coming here illegally, you can throw out all the names you want. Bottom line she’s harbouring fugitives’ from the law.
I highly doubt she would be blocking a public right of way outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, most likely she would be opening the door.
So to be clear, the criterion for “defrocking” is breaking a law you agree with?
Another example of sick liberalism in the PCUSA.
A church breaks the law to give aid to illegal immigrants, but their denomination voted not to give a bottle or clothes to an American baby who survives an abortion.
Heartless…
No, I’m against standing outside abortion clinics, harbouring illegals’. She’s breaking the law, of course the people hiring these illegals’ under the table for cheap labor are just as guilty, which is why they come to begin with.
So then, “defrocking” should only apply for those who commit particularly heinous crimes. Such as, say, murder, larceny, or in this case harboring a person who has committed a misdemeanor.
She’s breaking the law, it does not matter what her motives are. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
James H – Just trying to nail down what you intend. It seems then that you are back to saying that breaking the law in general is cause for “defrocking,” so that it does apply to the abortion clinic protesters, as well as all of those people at the South African embassy back in the 1980’s. And perhaps Dr. King can be defrocked posthumously?
Southeast: “James H – Just trying to nail down what you intend. It seems then that you are back to saying that breaking the law in general is cause for “defrocking,” so that it does apply to the abortion clinic protesters, as well as all of those people at the South African embassy back in the 1980′s. And perhaps Dr. King can be defrocked posthumously?”
You’re compairing apples to oranges. Abortion is a right, and MLK was protest for American citizens. This pastor is giving sanctuary to law breakers who are not citizens. I’m not saying these people she’s protecting are not good people, but they broke our laws by coming to the US the wrong way.
Still attempting to discern where your line is drawn. From your last message, it appears to be: *harboring an undocumented immigrant=defrocked;
*blocking access to an abortion clinic=defrocked since access to abortion is a right for US citizens;
*Martin Luther King=not defrocked because he was breaking the law on behalf of US citizens?
I never imagined Dr. King et. al. were only thinking about citizens, but I confess I had never thought of that particular aspect so I can offer no evidence to the contrary. I presume that means that you would put those arrested outside the South African embassy during the days of apartheid in the “defrocked” category, since they were breaking US law on behalf of people who were not US citizens. I find your way of looking at all of this to be rather unusual, but I suppose as long as you are consistent…
While I doubt I agree with the politics of the pastor in question, in general I think a wide latitude should be given by the church for acts of conscience.
(meaning I do not think a pastor should be defrocked for an act of this nature)
At least we agree on something, whether it be abortion clinic protesters or sanctuary providers.
Well with the way things are these days, louisville will likely erect monument to her because she’s ‘stickin’ to the man’.
almost every house of worship in the US probably provides donated food, supplies, and/or financial support to food pantries in this country, those food pantries then distribute goods no questions asked to anyone who needs them, including those living in the US illegally. providing a roof overhead is really not much different from this behavior, which has become common, it is arguably no more or less ‘illegal’ than the norm. and during WWII many Jews found refuge in ‘illegal’ safe havens, quite often religious buildings.
the true issue that’s being ignored here is that many in this new wave of illegals are not here for the reasons advertised by the media. there are legitimate safety issues that necessitate a less than lenient position for these ‘children’. the PCUSA is once again on the opposite side of the correct position in this case, housing young desperate potentially violent paid weapons of mass destruction. this is a matter of strategic self defense that once again is beyond the scope of the political action committee also known as the PCUSA.