GA welcomes ‘the stranger’
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman, July 9, 2012
In a post-midnight session on July 6, the General Assembly approved all 11 recommendations from its Committee on Immigration Issues, calling upon the U.S. Congress to develop a comprehensive immigration policy that welcomes both documented and undocumented immigrants and diminishes enforcement of border violations. Also included are recommendations to churches on increasing their efforts to welcome immigrants into their ministries and membership and a decision to continue the General Assembly’s boycott of states that take it upon themselves to enforce immigration laws that the US government is reluctant to enforce.
Earlier, as the General Assembly Committee on Immigration Issues gathered for a day of deliberations, the moderator asked, “Are there one or two folks who would be willing to share your photo and tell us how it expresses what you are feeling?” Each committee member had been instructed on arrival to select one picture from a pile of images that had been placed on their tables. The picture they chose was to represent their emotional state.
“Mine is a picture of a pizza,” said a committee member, “There are so many things in a pizza that are different, and they are all good. When they come together they make a great pizza, and I feel like that’s what we are in this committee.”
“Feeling” carried great weight in this committee’s work. Commissioners and guests who addressed them during open hearings were encouraged to “share your passions” as they rendered their assessment of U.S. immigration policies. Tears proved particularly effective as the voices of those who suffer the pain of exclusion were catapulted to center stage.
If this committee was a pizza, its composition was almost exclusively pepperoni, with scant evidence of other ingredients in the mix. Committee votes on most of immigration proposals that came before it were virtually unanimous. There was discussion, and a few amendments were proposed, but most amendments were friendly to the main motion, usually dealing with wordsmith minutia.
“All I want to do is correct a split infinitive, and the moderator insists that I make a motion,” said one committee member.
On the committee’s plate were 11 overtures dealing with the plight of immigrants, with a particular focus on those who are in the United States illegally (without documentation). Some overtures asked that the General Assembly call on Congress to replace current practices with a new, comprehensive immigration policy.
Some overtures were policy specific, asking that the process of moving immigrants into full citizenship be accelerated, enforcement of immigration laws be “more just,” particularly as it relates to maintaining the unity of immigrant families, that “racial profiling” be terminated, and that the DREAM Act, or similar legislation that grants legitimacy to children of undocumented immigrants under certain conditions be adopted.
The committee heard several presentations by General Assembly visitors and staff members describing the living conditions and environment of fear to which undocumented immigrants are subjected. The U.S. government was often portrayed as a villain, with particular emphasis placed on the purported actions of law enforcement officers.
At one point during the committee discussion, after much ado had been made of the police allegedly breaking into homes and business offices and corralling undocumented workers like cattle, one committee member, a retired police officer stood to challenge what he believed were sweeping characterizations and blatant inaccuracies. To the charge that immigration officials routinely break into people’s homes and “raid” businesses where they suspect illegal immigrants are hiding, he pointed out that warrants must be obtained before homes can be entered and court orders are necessary before a business establishment can be searched. Following his cautionary words, the language employed by committee members appeared significantly restrained.
While most of the business before this committee dealt with public policy, some overtures focused on the church, urging Presbyterian congregations to step up their work with immigrants in their communities, welcoming them into congregational fellowship. A speaker from Chicago Presbytery encouraged the committee to recognize immigrants not only as the recipients of mission, but as persons with particular gifts that can enrich Presbyterian congregations. A speaker from Arizona pointed to the PCUSA’s dramatic membership decline. It is interesting to note, he said, that during this same period, the growth of our Hispanic population has mushroomed. Welcoming immigrants into our fellowship may be a solution to our membership problem, he suggested.
Although the committee was virtually unanimous in its response to most of the overtures that it received, one overture did generate some debate. Overture 12-01 from the Presbytery of Grand Canyon asked the General Assembly to rescind the Immigration policy that had been adopted by the 2010 General Assembly. That policy requires the General Assembly to boycott states like Arizona that have adopted strong enforcement laws against illegal immigration. The boycott rule prohibits the General Assembly from conducting meetings in such states.
Speaking on behalf of Grand Canyon Presbytery, Debra Avery assured committee members that the churches of her presbytery were working tirelessly to minister to their immigrant neighbors, both documented and undocumented. This is a particular challenge to those who live in border states, she said, and they see this as their mission. “What we need from the wider church,” she said, “is not your separation, but your involvement in our work. As we answer God’s call to be with strangers in our midst, we need you to be with us.”
There is no evidence that the boycott has any effect on U.S. public policy, said another speaker. It simply alienates Presbyterians in Border States from their own denomination. “If you want to make a difference, come over here and help us.”
That plea brought the Rev. Chris Iosso to his feet. Iosso, a General Assembly official with the Assembly’s Committee on Social Witness Policy, urged the committee to defeat Grand Canyon’s overture. “If you reverse the policy of the 2010 General Assembly, the dignity of the General Assembly is at stake.” Iosso also argued that the boycott is not only an attempt to put pressure on corporate America – like the denomination’s divestment of Caterpillar stock that he also promotes – but it is an act of protection for undocumented Presbyterians. If the denomination holds a meeting in a state like Arizona, he explained, and an undocumented Presbyterian from another state attends that meeting, he or she could be arrested, jailed, deported or otherwise separated from family and friends.
The debate surfaced mushrooms, olives and even a couple of anchovies in Committee Number 12’s pizza, elements that had heretofore been hidden by its unanimity. The committee turned down Grand Canyon’s plea to rescind previous General Assembly immigration policy by a vote of 39 for, 12 against and 3 abstentions. Its recommendation that Grand Canyon Overture 12-01 be answered in the negative was presented and approved by the General Assembly during its July 6 session.