Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Evaluating the New Sanctuary Movement
Evaluating the New Sanctuary Movement
Dec 2, 2025 12:28 PM

Across America a group of Christians have banded together to promote a movement to protect illegal aliens from deportation. This is not a new phenomenon at all. What is a little different, at least about some aspects of this renewal of an older movement, is that it has now focused primarily on protecting Mexicans, who are living illegally in the U. S., from deportation. A celebrated case is unfolding day-by-day here in Chicago so I hear a great deal about this on a regular basis. I am not entirely sure how to think about the movement or this particular case. (As is true with many similar issues there seems to be no simple, single, obvious answer.) I see some things clearly here but then there are some issues that seem less clear to me.

The Chicago story is a pretty straightforward sanctuary case. Elvira Arellano, 32, came to America as an undocumented Mexican alien in 1997 to find work. She was deported shortly thereafter and then returned and worked at several different jobs, including child care. She moved to Illinois in 2000 because she had friends in Chicago. Here she took a job cleaning planes at O’Hare International Airport. While she was in the U. S. illegally she got pregnant and had a son, Saul, who is now eight years old. This means Elvira’s son Saul is a U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth place. Elvira was arrested in 2002 at O’Hare and later convicted of working under a false Social Security number. Last August, 2006, she was to surrender to authorities but decided to take refuge inside a Methodist church in Chicago. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials consider her a fugitive because she failed to surrender for deportation.

Elvira now intends to leave her sanctuary at the Methodist Church and lobby Congress for immigration reform, even if it means she will be arrested and deported. She says that if she is deported her son will stay in the U.S. Her plans for D.C. are to pray, with a group of immigration rights people, for eight hours on the National Mall on September 12th. Her supporters have invited others to join her in prayer and to participate in a boycott from work, school and shopping on that specific date. However, on Monday, August 20, she was taken into custody in Sacramento, choosing e out of her church Chicago sanctuary sooner than she had at first stated. Deportation plans are now in the works as of today.

The proposal that Elvira supports by her efforts is one that says there must be immigration reform which would include a safe-harbor visa program for illegal immigrants parents who have U. S. citizen children and a five-year temporary visa for those who qualify under national security standards. She adds, “Families should not be separated. I understand fear because I fear being torn from the arms of my son.”

Consider this issue as dispassionately as possible. (I doubt this can be done by most of us if we are really, really honest.)

Update: Arellano has been deported to Mexico. Read Brooke Levitske’s July 11 mentary on the New Sanctuary Movement here. — Ed.

1. This woman is willing to leave her son in the U.S. and return to Mexico without him. This says several things to me, some good and some very troubling. Is economic opportunity so important to her that she would give up rearing her son so he can have greater financial security? Is this heroism or selfishness? Strong feelings will exist on both sides. Since I do not know what conditions she escaped in Mexico I do not know what to make of her stance in some ways.

2. There is no question that this woman is here illegally. Further, there is no question that she has defied U.S. authority by her actions. The argument is that she has done so out of conscience because the laws, in her case and others, are not just, either in the U. S. or Mexico.

3. She has already made a choice that has impacted her son’s life profoundly, living in the second floor of a church while she cannot go outside and he can. The emotional stress of this has to be immense.

4. She is very serious about her cause or she would not risk deportation by going to Washington, or to Sacramento where she was arrested on Monday. You have to admire Elvira for her courage. How many of us would take a stand on anything that might bring us real inconvenience?

5. Her illegal status does not make her a criminal, at least not in the proper sense of the term, thus it would be helpful if this just distinction was made by strong anti-illegal immigrant conservatives. Emotions run high on both sides of this issue and a lot of this response is filled with fear language, especially on the conservative side. The liberal side offers us a lot of promises with little to back up the real reform needed with regard to this difficult problem.

So, is the sanctuary movement a good or just one? Is Elvira right to stay and fight the laws that she thinks are unjust? Is she right to risk the raising her own son under her care as his mom so that he can have a “better” life by staying in America even if she is deported back to Mexico? And is the church right to support this, why or why not?

While this debate rages emotions still run very high on the problem of Mexican illegal workers within America. The estimates of how many there are run as high as 12 million. Congress has debated and argued and nothing has been done. We remain in a state of limbo and personally I think the strong conservatives are as much to blame for this impasse as any group. The conservative movement has opposed all proposals for immigration reform so strongly that we are left with nothing for now.

I don’t have a simple solution. I do know that we need to have this conversation among thoughtful Christians and we need to learn how to listen better and think this through more dispassionately than we seem able to do. The church, in general, disappoints me in that it either runs away from this tough issue or it adopts a polarizing position on one side or the other. This makes people like Elvira newsworthy and semi-tragic. What do you think?

John H. Armstrong is founder and director of ACT 3, a ministry aimed at "encouraging the church, through its leadership, to pursue doctrinal and ethical reformation and to foster spiritual awakening." His home blog is located here.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
What does it mean to be On Call In Culture?
Most of us know what it feels like… this pull toward something. Whether it is art or science or writing or business—there is something inside you that says, “Yes, this is where I belong. This is what I was meant to do!” As Christians this realization e with a bit of disappointment mixed with the excitement of finding our place. We somehow wish that our calling were something of a more spiritual nature…something that mattered more. But here’s a question:...
Happiness is Subjective
One of the conclusions from last mentary was that the government shouldn’t be in the business of promoting a particular vision of the good life in America. That’s not to say that the government doesn’t have some role in promoting mon good or making some normative judgments about the good life. But it shouldn’t get anywhere near the level of specificity of promising a family, home, college education, and retirement for all. In part this is because while moral good...
Samuel Gregg: Inequality Anyone?
Over at National Review Online, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg takes a look at a recent Charles Blow op-ed in the New York Times in which the writer hyperventilates about statements made by Rick Santorum on the subject of e inequality. Economically speaking, e inequality reflects the workings of several factors, many of which are essential if we want a dynamic, growing economy. Even your average neo-Keynesian economist will acknowledge that, without incentives (such as the prospect of a higher...
No Olympic Dream: Monti’s wake up call to Italy
On Valentine’s Day, just one day before having to tender its application to the International Olympic Committee in Lausanne, Switzerland, Italy’s pragmatic Prime Minister Mario Monti showed no romantic spirit by canceling his nation’s dream to host the 2020 Summer Olympics. In a last-minute decision made Feb. 14, Prime Minister Monti explained at a press conference that the already overburdened Italian taxpayers simply cannot afford to finance the estimated $12.5 billion to bring the 2020 Olympic Games to Rome. “I...
Since Christ Died for Us
Yesterday my son asked me why today is called “Ash Wednesday.” In that question I could hear the echoes of another question, “Since Christ has died for us, why do we still have to die?” The latter question is found in the Heidelberg Catechism, and the brief but poignant answer has stuck with me since I first encountered it. First, the catechism clarifies that our death does not have redemptive power: “Our death does not pay the debt of our...
Madison on Religious Conscience
The HHS Mandate is troubling to so many simply because it’s a clear Constitutional violation. Any basic understanding of Constitutional rights and our religious freedom sees that this is primarily about religious liberty, and not solely an issue concerning contraceptives or Roman Catholics. Last week we heard from James Madison on religious liberty in my post “Religious Liberty or Government Tolerance?” In 1792, Madison wrote an essay titled “Property” in the National Gazette. This is a brilliant piece by Madison...
Gleaner Tech #2: The Global Village Construction Set
[Note: This is the second in an occasional series ongleaner technology.] The Global Village Construction Setis a collection of 40 machines needed to “create a small civilization with forts…like a life-size Lego set.” ...
Libertarians, Religious Conservatives, and the Myth of Social Neutrality
When es to our view of individual liberty, one of the most unexplored areas of distinction between libertarians and religious conservatives* is how we view neutrality and bias. Because the differences are uncharted, I have no way of describing the variance without resorting to a grossly simplistic caricature—so with a grossly simplistic caricature we shall proceed: Libertarians believe that neutrality between the various spheres of society—and especially betweenthe government and the individual—are both possible and desirable, and so the need...
Government and Gambling
Over at Mere Comments I note the recent invective against gambling leveled by Al Mohler and Russell Moore. I contend that as opposed to casinos, lotteries are in fact the most troubling example of state-sponsored gambling. And I also worry a bit about the use of legal means to prohibit gambling, as it isn’t so clear to me that gambling is always and in every case a moral evil. Thus, I write, that cultural rather than primarily political attempts to...
Biased in Favor of the Entrepreneur State
Yesterday I argued that since bias is inherent in institutions and neutrality between individual and social spheres is illusory we should harness and direct the bias of institutions towards a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles. One of the ways we can do that in the economic realm, I believe, is to encourage a bias toward entrepreneurship and away from corporatism. As Derek Thompson, a senior editor at The Atlantic, says, “It would...