Home › News › County News
Simi church to shelter illegal immigrants
Congregants will protect those who have deportation orders but won't attempt to hide them
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
Members of the United Church of Christ in Simi Valley voted Sunday to join a handful of congregations nationwide that protect people about to be deported by allowing them to live in sanctuaries.
In a move some critics argue should cost any church its tax-exempt status, congregants said an undocumented person or family who has received a deportation order could stay on church property in a home once used as a parsonage. Church leaders say the decision will become official in a day or two, as soon as they talk to insurers about liability issues.
The vote puts the 80-member congregation, which describes itself as progressive and radically inclusive, in place to become the fifth Southern California congregation to open its doors to illegal immigrants. Across the nation, about seven people or families are being sheltered by religious communities in what is called the New Sanctuary Movement.
"It fits in with the core values of our congregation," said the Rev. Frank Johnson, the church's minister emeritus. "We advocate for justice, not just to speak for it, but to do things to achieve justice."
If things go as planned, the Simi congregation would provide shelter, banding with other members of area churches to provide food and financial support. Lawyers would continue work to stop the deportation process. Movement leaders say they don't know when a family would move into the church or who that family would be, although an undocumented woman from Oxnard is currently living at a Long Beach church. The person would be on the verge of deportation, have a strong work history and have children who are U.S. citizens.
Wouldn't try to hide anyone
The Rev. June Goudey, the Simi church's pastor, said congregants wouldn't try to hide anyone or physically stop immigration agents from making an arrest. Instead they are banking on the government's reluctance to arrest someone living at a church.
"We're not trying to stand in the way of the legal system. We're trying to open the door for the appeal process," she said.
Opponents say congregations that offer sanctuary are harboring aliens and should lose tax privileges for it.
"They're helping someone stay in the country illegally," said Michael Lief, an advocate for tougher enforcement of immigration laws and a criminal prosecutor with the Ventura County District Attorney's Office. "The churches are saying we dare you to enforce the law.' In the U.S., which is not a theocracy, we all operate under the law."
Possible legal repercussions
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have been asked about the New Sanctuary Movement often enough that they have an official statement, which dodges the meatiest question: Will immigration agents arrest a person in a religious sanctuary?
"Those who willfully violate U.S. immigration laws face the consequences of their actions," the statement says. "We carry out enforcement actions at appropriate times and places."
Leaders of the new movement say it's legal for congregations to protect people about to be deported because they're not hiding them and won't try to stop any arrests. But they also warn congregations there could be legal repercussions.
Leaders of the Simi church say they just want to help families being pulled apart by immigration laws.
"That, to us, is more important than the possibility that it might be against the law," Johnson said.
The original sanctuary movement emerged in the 1980s. Hundreds of churches offered protection to refugees fleeing from death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala. Some of the church leaders were later convicted of helping to smuggle immigrants. The New Sanctuary Movement emerged this year in interfaith congregations in about 25 cities. Many of the groups are still in planning stages.
Oxnard women sought sanctuary
Leaders of the Ventura County Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice started talking to local congregations about the movement several months ago. The movement picked up speed when a 29-year-old woman from Oxnard, identified by movement leaders only as Liliana, was visited by immigration authorities in May and learned she was about to be deported. She asked for sanctuary.
There were no takers among congregations in Ventura County, although the woman's situation was dire, said Manuel Valencia, who eventually took Liliana to his Sierra Madre home. She was undocumented, but her husband and three children, ages 7 years old, 4 years old and 4 months old, were all U.S. citizens.
If she were deported, she'd leave her family behind, although her baby would have to go with her because he is still breast-feeding.
Ventura County congregations needed more time to make a decision on Liliana that their members would support, according to local movement coordinators.
Valencia, a deacon at St. Rita's Catholic Church in Sierra Madre, said he's come to understand the hesitance, but the news angered him at first.
"Here was a young mother knocking on doors with a 2-month-old infant saying, help me,' " he said. "When that happens, the Catholic church teaches that family is sacrosanct."
Valencia and his wife sheltered the woman and her baby for three weeks. Then Liliana found sanctuary at St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Long Beach. They've been there for about a month, sleeping in the church's office building.
"Thanks to God we are doing well," Liliana said in a phone interview Friday. "Thank God, I found this place, and here we are fighting."
Immigrants aren't identified
Alice Linsmeier, executive director of the Ventura County Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, said Liliana will be a candidate but isn't guaranteed sanctuary at the Simi church. She said there will be a process to make sure the congregation and its immigrant family are a good match.
There are several other Ventura County families who may need sanctuary, Linsmeier said.
Many people are angered at the willingness of churches to interfere with the law. John Keeley of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., said the sanctuary movement ignores a public majority that wants more enforcement against illegal immigrants.
"I would question any church leader sanctioning this and ask him or her What is it about this view that is distinctive or morally superior to 80 percent of the American public that can and does distinguish between legal and illegal immigration?'" he said.
Movement leaders say they're not hiding the illegal immigrants. But they're also not identifying them, partly for fear the immigrants' families could be impacted. They release first names only.
Members of the Simi church voted by a wide margin to provide sanctuary. Church leaders said congregants' concerns revolved around liability that could emerge if something happened to someone living on church property.
At least five other congregations in the county are considering playing a support role for the Simi church. Some leaders of outside churches have pledged individual support.
— Staff writer Adam Foxman contributed to this report.
Posted by smithjc on July 9, 2007 at 4:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
not only should they lose their tax-exempt status, but those acting as parties to this should be prosecuted for aiding fugitives from justice.
i'm sure that there are those who will cite as precedent the actions of various churches and individuals that helped to hide and smuggle jews out of germany and the occupied areas during the holocaust. there is, however, a huge difference between that and the current situation. back then, they were protecting from death LEGAL residents of the countries and helping to smuggle them out of the countries to save their lives. here, they a trying to protect people in this country ILLEGALLY (i.e., criminals) and prevent them from being sent back where they belong, their own countries.
this is a nation of laws. those laws define the behaviour that is tolerable to the majority of the people and helps maintain order. we can't allow anyone to pick and chose the laws that they will obey, lest our nation descend into anarachy.
Posted by Legal_American on July 9, 2007 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why are churches exempt from taxes? They should pay like everyone else.
Seems to me that the churches are saying “it’s okay to break the law”.
Posted by realbsball on July 9, 2007 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This practice is getting out of hand and is only exacerbating a much bigger problem. Laws must be enforced, and churches cannot hold themselves out as being above the law.
Wake up America!
Posted by cslaurie on July 9, 2007 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PS: this isn't the dark ages and the church in America has no right of sanctuary. There again the King can't behead a bishop that displeases him. Whatever happened between the division between church and state?
I believe churches and denominations should be taxed on their holdings, land, businesses and stock. We could probably half the income tax if we did tax them.
This instance is certainly reason for the IRS to take away their tax exemption - this church is making a political statement.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 9, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tax exempt status is okay if the church is doing true charitable work.
I don't believe that any church or members thereof should be above the law. In this case, the church should lose tax exempt status and participants in this effort to keep yet more illegals in our country should be dealt with severely.
Posted by kelly13 on July 9, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe when the members of this church saw the signs that said "what would Jesus do?" they pronounced the name wrong.
What kind of church promotes illegal behavior?
If you read what kind of laws Mexico has for illegal immigrants coming into their country perhaps the "do unto others"scripture would have some meaning.
Actions like this by the church explain why people have lost faith in going to church. We need to get back to basic right and wrong and this is just plain wrong.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 9, 2007 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SmithJc, I agree totally with all of your comment. Exactly what I would have wrote.
I do believe however that churches should be tax exempt due to the fact they are non-profit. Just like the girl scouts, little league etc. But when they break the law then I do believe action should be taken even if it means taking away thier tax exemptions!! If I did something illegal I sure wouldn't expect the church to hide me from the law !
Posted by tellthetruth on July 9, 2007 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is this church helping illegal immigrants and not legal us citizens that are in need? The Bible says we need to follow the laws of our country not to break them. It is obvious this church has not pulled out a Bible in a while! I shouldn't be surprised, this church is a known abusive church that interprets scripture to meet its own needs.
Posted by tobnerb on July 9, 2007 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In Liliana's case, I do not see how the following is justice: Deporting her and her 4 month old baby, a legal citizen, to Mexico where they have no family. Separating her from her husband and 2 other children, who are all legal citizens, without the chance to appeal (once she is deported from the country, she has no right to appeal the deportation).
What the United Church of Christ Simi Valley is doing is simply allowing people like Liliana a place to live while they are going through legal proceedings to become legal citizens. They are not harboring anyone - instead they are being very open and honest about it. They are not preventing ICE or INS from deporting anyone. This is a humanitarian effort, not political.
In response to hamskid: In my opinion, this is exactly what Jesus would do.
Posted by wdwinder1 on July 9, 2007 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Liliana has a legal citizen husband, and based on the oldest child's age, I'm guessing she's been here illegally for at least 7 years. Did it ever occur to her to become legal? Oh thats right, they won't deport her with three anchor babies, so why bother. ooops. The deportation is not separating her from her family. That is a decision she has made with her husband. Her could go with her. Its easy to immigrate into Mexico right? ha ha.
So how many homeless legal citizens is this same church extending the 'humanitarian effort' to?
Posted by kelly13 on July 9, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Liliana made the decision to be here illegally knowing what should happen if she was caught.
If someone stole my car and was caught, should they be allowed to keep my car? Shall I furnish them gas while they drive my car?
Her family doesn't have to be seperated. Her husband and children can go to Mexico with her. If they choose to stay, that is their choice. Don't try to make legal citizens of the US feel guilty for seperating families. We are not the ones who created these problems.
We need to enforce our laws and stop making excuses for lawbreakers. We are just creating more problems by not enforcing the law.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 9, 2007 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've given further thought to this case. We have experience within the immigration arena in our own family. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, i.e., that Liliana is actually married to her "husband," that he is truly a citizen and the father of all three children, I cannot understand why she has not achieved legal residency.
I've seen too many people, primarily Latinos, applying the same mindset to their immigration status that has them driving with no driver's license or insurance.
Why should they be given special consideration?
Posted by Comments on July 9, 2007 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Astounding! I actually think it's wonderful that people and their church communities are trying to help them. I have no beef with immigrants - legal or otherwise. I know that if I lived in a 3rd world country I'd do whatever I could to get here to give my family a better life.
Having said all that though I find it absolutely astounding that our policy makers and law enforcers continue to allow the church to get away with things that ordinary citizens would not be able to get away with. Their job is to enforce our laws - and sadly that also includes enforcing the laws of those who come here illegally. No, the church would not be harboring or aiding and abetting as some here have said and implied. They are doing it out in the open and plan to try and rub it in the face of law enforcment officers. The following statement really got me: "The Rev. June Goudey, the Simi church's pastor, said congregants wouldn't try to hide anyone or physically stop immigration agents from making an arrest. Instead they are banking on the government's reluctance to arrest someone living at a church." Why is the gov't reluctant to arrent someone living at a church? What difference does it make where the person lives? Why the heck don't we recognize the separation of church and state?
So, while I tend to side with immigrants and their plight I am appalled by the fact that once again the church seems to think it doesn't have to play by the rules we all play by. And yes, I think they should have to pay property taxes.
Posted by tesseract on July 9, 2007 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this church is doing a good thing. I have looked into the case they are trying to take on. It is clear it is totally wrong to deport this nursing lady and her baby and to separate this family, who all but her are legal. And for the record, she has tried to become legal. It makes no sense to deport her. The family owned a house and were completely self-sufficient. Now with the govt trying to deport, the family has to rely on some govt financial support, although the father is trying to do everything he can (work 2 jobs, etc).
Kudos to the church and other churches who are supporting special-circumstance families during their deportation appeal processes. And the church is helping legal us citizens - the father and kids are all legal! And for the record, I am not a member of this church. I have, however, gone to this church to help with homeless dinners they host and to drop off stuff for the Samaritan Ctr, since the church I attend doesn't directly donate to the local center.
Posted by ShelleyCam on July 9, 2007 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First, I don't personally agree with this movement. But most relevant-they are not breaking any laws. There is so much talk about churches paying various taxes-not to mention junkmails comments! Most churches receive the bulk of their funds from individuals and families. We pay our own income and property tax. Any other revenues required by different arms of goverment to sustain a church building are certainly collected at the time of purchase or lease. That's why we have zoning laws. What about all of the practical support most churches infuse their community with? Think of inner city soup kitchens. Also, I have never attented a church that does not have a general benevolence fund. There are far too many examples to list. Anyone who advocates taxing churches is very out of touch with where most congregations spend their revenue. Anyone is welcome to attend our church's business meetings, although I can't speak for others. Let's try to remember the facts. Not to mention lumping us all into the same category! Even if these churches were breaking the law, they would be a tiny percentage of churches. This is a very specific issue. I feel for all of you who have applied these circumstances accross the board, and I will be praying for you.
Posted by cheese94000 on July 9, 2007 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LETS SEE CHURCH AND GOD ARE ALL IN ONE. FOR THOSE WHOM LIKE TO VOICE THERE OPINION THIS COUNTRY WAS MADE WITH THAT THOUGH IN MIND. SOME PEOPLE BLAME WHAT WE WOULD CALL THE OUTSIDERS FOR EVERYTHING BUT WE FORGET THEY ARE JUST HUMAN. LETS STOP AND THINK CHURCH IS FOR ALL OF US
Posted by cheese94000 on July 9, 2007 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FOR THOSE WHOM LIKE TO TAX EVERYONE LETS START WELL LETS HAVE THE PRESIDENT HAVE PARTIES WITH MORE OIL MILLIONAIRS ON OUR TAB. SORRY LETS HOLD ON LETS TAX CHURCHES SO WE CAN HAVE MORE CRIME FOR THOSE WHOME DONT KNOW OR HAVE A IDEA OF WHAT RELIGIONN IS.
Posted by Comments on July 9, 2007 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cheese, all I can say is "huh?" Though I read your comments a few times I'm still unable to figure out what it is you're trying to say. Couple that with the capital letters you chose to post in and it's really impossible.
Posted by debs6196 on July 9, 2007 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
re: Ken1000,
I can pretty safely assure you that the Simi Church is not full of "right wingers." In fact, they are probably made up of a group of Christians who do not support abortion bans and fear stem-cell research! Christian churchs are very diverse - some wildly liberal and some extremely conservative. Do they have opinions and like to express them? Yes, indeed! You see Christianity and democracy complement one another, so think before you throw billions of people under one very small umbrella.
Posted by kgj on July 9, 2007 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's tax all religions (not just churches, but the institutions that own the real property) that embroil themselves in American politics, preach a political ideology alongside a religious theology from their pulpits, and attempt to have laws passed to regulate the behavior of believers and non-believers alike. So, to be consistent, if we're going to tax the United Church of Christ of Simi Valley (which, like the biblical Jesus, is apparently just trying to help those in need, but not trying to impose its will on anyone else), let's tax all the churches that have some rather ungodly agendas. Let's tax the churches that want to make women second-class citizens by taking away their same right to sovereignty over their own bodies that men currently enjoy. Let's tax every church that peddles ideology to Congress so that people waiting for new treatments from stem-cell research have to wait that much longer. Let's tax churches that blatantly favor one political party over others and spend their parishioners' tax-free contributions to support financially that one favored political party.
Religion is inflicted on humanity to punish it for wasting its reasoning powers on belief in the invisible, unprovable, and undemonstrable.
Posted by smithjc on July 9, 2007 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
let's keep in mind that the reason that her children are "legal" is that they are "anchor babies", born while the mother was here illegally. that's something that needs to change, too. it's time to change the law so that only children born of parents in this country legally get automatic citizenship. if you are here illegally, your children born here should be illegal, too.
basic point: no sympathy on this end for "breaking up the family" after all, according to mexican law, they are still citizens there, too, and if they committed crimes here would be protected there.
Posted by teesdin on July 9, 2007 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
despicable. when is the protest?
Posted by Comments on July 9, 2007 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kgi - I'm with you. Let's tax all churches - or more accurately all places of faith that are currently enjoying tax free land.
Posted by felburg on July 9, 2007 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope this doesn't attract more illegals to Simi Valley.
Posted by jammerj13 on July 9, 2007 at 11:46 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by rg on July 9, 2007 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess I fail to understand why it would ever be legal to deport the spouse of an American citizen whether they are legal or not. If an American soldier marries someone from outside the U.S. and chooses to bring them home to live why should that be a problem? While their spouse, or American citizen children are living here then why should they be forced to leave?
Whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!".
Unless I'm mistaken, that is still written on the base of the Statue of Liberty.
While I'm not in favor of breaking the law, I am more against blatant injustice.
Posted by smithjc on July 10, 2007 at 5:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
there is a difference between a soldier marrying someone and bringing them into the country and this situation where a person already in the country illegally marries a citizen. that already stinks of attempting to commit fraud to stay here.
Posted by rg on July 10, 2007 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Say what? Why on earth does it matter where or how they met? It is only fraud if the illegal has no intention of really being married. If someone is willing to have kids with someone and help raise them then I am willing to call that legitimate. For that matter, the marriage is legitimate even without kids, for as long as they stay married. However, if they were to divorce and there weren't any kids, then I would see no compelling reason for the illegal person to stay here.
I guess I see no reason that a non-American married to an American should be allowed to become a citizen faster than anyone else. However, if their family is legally here they should just be considered to be legal aliens and be allowed to stay.
Posted by ecarson1958 on July 10, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is all so confusing!!! There are so many mitigating circumstances, that the arbitrary facts cannot be surmised in a short newspaper article. Just as a person is innocent until proven guilty, we should all with hold our judgement until we know all of the facts. There is nothing wrong with voicing our opinions, but blatantly proclaiming an absolute of deportation for this mother of three, is no different than the Salem Witch hunt and trials back in the Colonial days. Reserve judgement for a judge and jury, and then uphold those decisions.
Have compassion for our fellow citizens, and think for a moment that, "but there for not by the grace of God go I". I can't believe how many comments posted have an underlying tone of bigotry and racism. Little children are now separated from their mother who has to live in an office in a church.
Deporting her would have such a positive contribution to our community. She is probably breaking all kinds of laws. Stealing, fraud and who knows what else. We need to hurry up and send her back. Forget the kids. Who cares. Let dad take care of them. He married her. I am not going to have a good nights sleep, until I know she is back where she belongs. Doesn't that make you feel better? How sad. I really hope that people don't feel that way.
I'll bet if any of us sat down and had a conversation with her, we would probably find out that she walked over a thousand miles to get here. She cleaned our houses for years to make enough money just to eat. She probably met her husband and fell in love like everyone else, got married and then had her children. They are just surviving the best way they can. Law abiding, contributing members of our society. Who knows why she didn't become legal? But, why do we have the right to destroy her life? I wonder if my Great great great great great Grandfather was a legal immigrant when he came here from Ireland. Maybe not, so I guess in a way that makes me an illegal alien. Well, start the paper work for my deportation. But, could you please get me the address to that church. I'm probably going to need sancuary.
Posted by kelly13 on July 10, 2007 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This isn't about one person..it's about a huge problem. The article says the woman you are talking about is already being taken care of by another church...with financial help from our government for her family. This church in Simi says they are willing to take in illegals and protect them. It is inviting illegal behavior.
There is no country on earth more generous than the USA. There are no people more giving than Americans. But we are overwhelmed and being taken advantage of by ungrateful people who demand more than we can keep giving. The problem is out of hand and is costing us our way of life and everything we have worked hard to make for ourselves and our families.
We need to do something about the problem of illegals. For every story you tell me about one good person who is here illegally I could match you with a story about a bad person who is here illegally. We need to look at the problem and not the person. Even the good person chose to commit the crime of coming here illegally. We can't keep rewarding and encouraging that illegal behavior.
Posted by Tspud1 on July 10, 2007 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone want to bet if the taxpayers paid for the babies and their healthcare over the last 7 years? Do you think we are maybe paying for some social programs as well? Can anyone say earned income credit? What a lesson to teach your kids, break the laws that you don't like. Render unto Caesar, United Church of Christ!
Posted by shaver_one on July 10, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whatever laws are currently on the books in Ventura County, or California...they are short lived. In 33 years, when hispanics are the majority, all of these laws against ilegal immigration will be repealed.
Posted by shaver_one on July 10, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whatever laws are currently on the books in Ventura County, or California...they are short lived. In 33 years, when hispanics are the majority, all of these laws against illegal immigration will be repealed.
Posted by LostSoul on July 10, 2007 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is truly a sign of jumping on the bandwagon. I would love to see this church property housing a street gang or a violent, criminal illegal alien. After all, why should this Pastor determine who lives there? Or the congregation - let's put a handful of the little 'La Raza' taggers throughout their sanctimonious homes. Isn't there the same Biblical passage that applies to that too? What was that...Did someone say that they have a say in who stays in their own home? Not any more! Let the marches begin to take back what doesn't belong to us. Wake up and smell Juan Valdez's ass (a.k.a. donkey) before it's too late.
Posted by romadati on July 10, 2007 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What if everyone was deported back to their place of origin, according to their family tree, then the only group of people that should remain in this country are the native Americans and less than 200 years ago, these native Americans were of Mexican nationality.
Posted by mellowlovato on July 15, 2007 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so sick of criminals who think we should feel sorry for them. I would never go to another country and expect people to pay for me. This problem is only going to get worse with the illegals popping babies out and getting tax money. I am also 29 and I have no children. Why should my tax money go to this criminal who couldn't keep her legs closed until she could get citizenship. She really was not thinking about her future and children. But the uneducated don't plan or think about their future. I don't feel sorry for her. I feel sorry for those who can't help what has happened to them.
Posted by moresij on July 16, 2007 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pretty much agree with what ecarson1958 posted on July 10, 2007.
What do the wise men have to say on this topic?
“You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result”
-Mahatma Gandhi
“Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.”
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.