| GA 2010: Assembly committee calls on assembly to consider issues of immigration |
| Written by Erin Dunigan, Outlook Special Correspondent | ||||||
| Wednesday, 07 July 2010 14:52 | ||||||
MINNEAPOLIS — After considerable discussion, a General Assembly committee approved a commissioners’ resolution responding to the controversial Arizona immigration law.
“It is not right to have meetings and do things as a church, when the entire church cannot be there,” said Trina Zelle, a minister from Grand Canyon Presbytery who, along with David Rockwell from de Cristo Presbytery, brought Commissioners’ Resolution 11-11, “Regarding a Call to Stand with Immigrant Presbyterians in Their Hour of Need.” The assembly’s Committee 11 – known as Social Justice Issues B: the Exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the World – discussed the resolution for close to three hours before passing it by a vote of 43-8. That resolution calls on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to “refrain from holding meetings in those states where travel by immigrant Presbyterians or Presbyterians of color or Hispanic ancestry might subject them to harassment due to legislation similar to Arizona Law SB1070/HB2162.” Commissioners from the committee who disagreed with the committee’s action intend to bring a minority report when the full General Assembly considers the committee's recommendation in plenary this week. Former General Assembly Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase – who for years worked in mission along the U.S.-Mexican border and now is co-director of the Stony Point Center outside New York City – proposed an amendment to the resolution. This amendment, which the committee approved, allows for exceptions if such laws are passed in states where PC(USA) camp and conference centers are located, and encourages those centers to develop "sanctuary" responses that would create safe places for all participants. The committee also added an amendment that directs the PC(USA)’s stated clerk to ask the National Council of Churches to request that North American churches join sister churches in Europe in a common day of prayer to commemorate migrants who have died on their journey. Former General Assembly moderator John Fife asked the committee to consider this item, in solidarity with churches in Europe that are addressing the thousands of migrants who have died migrating between North Africa and Europe. But much of the discussion involved the impact of immigration law in the United States. “I pastor a group where 90% of our membership is undocumented and our people live in fear,” said a commissioner from Central Florida Presbytery, speaking in favor of the commissioners’ resolution. “We are asking for our church to pay a price, not for fear, but for loving our brothers and sisters at this moment,” he said. “I have been assured by our two former moderators who work in this area and have years of experience that the people in the states where this is happening, those who are being discriminated against by this law, are the people who are asking for this, because it is a strong statement,” said Katherine Cooke, a commissioner from Charlotte Presbytery. In response to the committee’s action, Zelle – the co-author of the resolution – said: “I feel like this country is really infected with this disease of hatred and it has been spread all over. And this is the church saying: `No, we are not going to let it go anymore.’ ” Your Responses (3)
Madeleine Middleton
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Peel, AR Thank you, Elder Kaucher. I was an elder commissioner from the Arkansas Presbytery and tried in vain to have the plenary listen to me concerning this motion, it's discriminatory wording and blantant untruth. When Cynthia Bolbach asked the assembly how many had actually read the Arizona law, fewer than a handful raised their hands. I had!! One young commissioner confessed to this gathering a few moments later that after she had voted for the "censure" of the Arizona law in her committee, she read the actual law itself and wished she could have changed her vote. What is interesting is that the state of Rhode Island has been enforcing an almost identical set of laws for years with no back lash and is not being sued by the U.S. Government as is Arizona. This state has also not been censured by the PCUSA. I wonder why? I am also disturbed about how many other items the commissioners might have also voted on in total ignorance of what the actual truth was if this was a common example? |
Braulio
said:
|
Sacramento, CA I agree Jim - it makes you wonder if anoyone in the GA actually read SB1070. Here's text of a note I wrote to PCUSA - although my main focus (gripe)was the wording of the resolution: Greetings - As a member or friend PC USA for the past 50 years I am somewhat dismayed by the wording of the recent GA : Commissioners’ Resolution. Regarding a Call to Stand with Immigrant Presbyterians in Their Hour of Need. Having lived and worked in Mexico City for 10 years and later established a business in Mexicali, Baja California, serving the western corridor of Mexico (Hermosillo to Culiacan) I've come upon a perspective that's somewhat different than what's been expressed by the recent GA. My perspective is shared with many mexicans in and out of academia. I'm especially bothered by the fact that the GA has expressed that my perspective must be that of a racist. Of course as the GA well knows the more one protests that he/she is not a racist the more they appear to be one. Nice trick. This is not a very good way to promote dialogue or find solutions. My suggestion to whoever headed passage of GA 11-11 is that they be very careful in the way these resolutions are worded. You alienated some people for simply having a different viewpoint. When you imply racism it is very important that you follow that up with names of individuals, specific actions they have taken, and consequences of those actions. Otherwise your statement might be perceived as either half-baked - or "bully-ish". In terms of giving to hispanic people and their causes I'll submit my record for comparison to anyone's in the GA - although I must confess I've never been presumptuous in my viewpoint to the extent that I would serve on a body "on high" like the GA and dictate to others how they should think. I prefer to serve on the same level that I live - the micro level. Yes - you offended me for having a different viewpoint. So where do I go from here as a Presbyterian? Braulio |
Jim Kaucher
said:
|
Tucson, AZ I am an elder in the de Cristo Presbytery. I am also a lawyer. I am disappointed beyond words with this resolution. I am especially disappointed by the support provided by Commissioner Rockwell. The resolution, as reported and linked in this article, repeats the same libel and slander that has been directed at SB1070 (as amended). 1. The law does NOT encourage racial profiling. To the contrary, it expressly makes racial profiling illegal. 2. Federal law ALREADY requires non-citizens to carry their immigration documents with them at all times. Arizona's law does not impose any new legal requirements that do not already exist under federal law. All it does it make illegal, under Arizona law, what is ALREADY illegal under federal law. 3. Federal agents already have much broader authority to stop people and ask about their immigration status than the Arizona law grants to local law enforcement. A border patrol agent can stop people and ask for proof of citizenship -- without reasonable suspicion. Under Arizona law, there must first be a lawful police "stop, detention, or arrest" AND there must also be reasonable suspicion that the person is not in the country legally. AND the reasonable suspicion cannot be based on the person's race or ethnicity. Before people start loosely tossing around accusations of "hate," they might want (a) to read the law that they are condemning and (b) understand the federal law on which it is based. |
Write a Response
