Cracking Down on Immigration or Religious Liberty?

A group of evangelicals says a sweeping immigration proposal in Florida would trample their ministry.

By
28
(Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Jody Ray’s pastoral ministry to refugees and immigrants sometimes puts him at odds with members of his conservative community in Jacksonville, Florida. But so far, he’s not found himself at odds with the law.

A new immigration bill under consideration in the Sunshine State would change that and is generating pushback from some evangelicals in the process.

Senate Bill 1718 cracks down on businesses relying on illegal labor, requires hospitals to ask about patients’ citizenship status, and invalidates out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to illegal immigrants among other actions.

But it’s the sweeping bill’s transportation provision that Ray and a group of church leaders say has troubling religious liberty implications. It would make it a crime for anyone to transport illegal immigrants in the state for any reason. At a press conference hosted by the refugee organization World Relief and the Evangelical Immigration Table last week, the coalition said that the changes would prevent religious groups from following their faith in ministering to groups in need.

“Without a clarifying phrase, Senate Bill 1718 could very reasonably be interpreted to mean it could be illegal to drive an elderly neighbor to church,” Dale Schaeffer, a district superintendent with the Church of the Nazarene in Florida, said on the press call. “It could be a felony for a youth pastor to pick up a teenager in a church van.” Or school bus drivers taking students to church-affiliated schools.

“Religious liberties are at stake for literally tens of thousands of Christians across the state of Florida,” he said.

The bill makes it a third-degree felony—punishable by up to five years in prison—to transport “into or within this state an individual whom the person knows, or reasonably should know, has illegally entered the United States.” Each undocumented person would count as one offense. Five or more offenses at one time amounts to a second-degree felony, punishable by up to a 15-year prison sentence.

The measure’s intent is to target human smuggling in Florida, which is home to an estimated 772,000 undocumented immigrants, according to the Migration Policy Institute. But critics say it’s too broad. “It’s like a rocket launcher when you needed a fly swatter,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council and a former immigration lawyer, told The Dispatch. “And it raises enormous chilling effect concerns for the average Floridian who might have a friend or acquaintance or loved one or family member who is undocumented.” 

Federal law addresses the same issue but with a key difference. The federal Immigration and Nationality Act makes transporting someone in the country illegally a crime when the transportation is “in furtherance of such violation of law,” typically interpreted to mean assisting someone in evading immigration laws. 

“That clause is crucial,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “It’s not a federal crime to simply drive an undocumented immigrant from one place to another. You have to transport them in furtherance of their violation of immigration law.”

Typically, he added, federal courts have interpreted the statute to “target behavior like smuggling” or labor trafficking. The person doing the transporting also has to be in “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of the law.”

For now the controversial provision in the Florida law seems to have the backing of GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis. If he indeed mounts a presidential run later this year, he’ll likely try to court evangelical voters—some of whom are voicing the loudest opposition to the Florida bill.

DeSantis has made cracking down on immigration a key policy priority in Florida. In February, he announced his proposal to address “the increasing threats posed by illegal immigration as a result of the Biden administration’s failure to secure our nation’s borders.” His package included stiffening penalties against human smuggling including to “knowingly transport, conceal, or harbor illegal aliens.”

His allies in the statehouse have been quick to introduce legislation to codify DeSantis’ immigration priorities. The first day of Florida’s legislative session, GOP Sen. Blaise Ingoglia introduced SB 1718.

“I wholeheartedly thank and commend Gov. Ron DeSantis for having the courage to lead on this issue, when the federal government is failing our citizens, our families and our communities. This problem is now at our doorstep and Florida will not stand for it anymore,” he said.

In mid-March, the Senate Rules Committee approved the bill along party lines and referred it to another committee. The House of Representatives is also considering a similar bill, but the relevant committees have not yet held hearings or advanced the legislation. The legislature’s session adjourns on May 5. 

It’s unclear whether what passes will be as sweeping as the legislation’s current form, but it seems likely that whatever clears the Florida Legislature will meet the flourish of DeSantis’ pen. If it’s passed, the law would take effect on July 1.

“Since this legislation is still subject to the legislative process (and therefore different iterations), the governor will decide on the merits of the bill in final form if and when it passes and is delivered to the governor’s office,” DeSantis deputy press secretary Jeremy Redfern told The Dispatch.

Gabriel Salguero, who heads the National Latino Evangelical Coalition and pastors an Orlando-based Assemblies of God church, said he has reached out to DeSantis’ office to voice concerns, to no effect.

Lawmakers are “making an error, morally and strategically,” he said. “Especially when they go so far as to criminalize basic elements of church ministry.”

Ray, the Jacksonville missions pastor, said he has no plans to change his approach to ministry should the law pass: “As followers of Christ, we are living out our faith most clearly when we answer the call to care for those in need: widows, orphans, immigrants and the poor.”

28
By
Comments (28)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Mike in Mad City

    Good article on an important subject, and further documentation of the disturbing illiberal tendencies and reckless disregard for unintended consequences that the current governor of Florida exhibits, together with his toadies in the legislature. Fools rush in, and he is proving to be a particularly contemptible one. Which, considering the most plausible current presidential alternatives, is disappointing to demoralizing to this evangelical and conservative. But that is what it is.

    One quibble, and the author may not have had anything to do with this error, as it concerns the photo at the top. The story's sub-headline talks about evangelicals in Florida, setting up the article's focus. It appears from an internet search that Jody Ray, the first pastor referenced in the article, currently serves a Southern Baptist church in Jacksonville. He is therefore most likely properly identified as an evangelical. But the photo at the top of the story features an American Baptist church with an admittedly beautiful historic sanctuary situated in...Cambridge, Massachusetts(?).

    Now, this building's probably a lot easier on the eye than your typical suburban evangelical megachurch worship center. (Most of those buildings are about as architecturally interesting as an industrial warehouse - in fact I know of many evangelical churches that meet in actual converted warehouses, among various creatively repurposed property types.) But the photo's use here is inaccurate and a potential distraction. Here's why.

    In most Baptist denominations, individual cooperating churches are congregationally led, at least in theory, and there is room for them to vary in their stances on various social and theological issues, within reason. However, as a group, the American Baptist Churches USA is a mainline denomination, liberal to progressive on pretty much every social and theological point, and therefore not part of the American evangelical movement, broadly speaking. Most (but maybe not all) American Baptists would say the same about themselves.

    Based on its website, Old Cambridge Baptist Church appears to align with all the basic touchstones of contemporary liberal/progressive Protestantism. I don't know, but I'm guessing that all of the leaders and most of the members of that particular church would probably reject the evangelical label, were it offered to them.

    And here's why all this trivia matters. Upon seeing the lead photo, the knowledgeable reader of this article, whatever his or her own religious stance, begins to have some doubts about the accuracy of the story. Which is too bad, because (checking it out a little further), it appears to be well-reported.

    Collapse
  2. DTruitt

    Bills like this may appeal to simplistic objectives, but it would seem this one, as described, would be subject to challenges in Federal court if not state court on the basis of the US Constitution and the bill of rights. How that would turn out, I dunno. But it is clearly bait for Federal challenges, at the least.

    Plus practically speaking, pretty much everyone in Florida knows people who are not legally here, and we are at least somewhat aware (it doesn't take a genius to understand that many if not most non-English speaking construction workers are not legal immigrants). But that does not mean any of us has performed any specific examination of documents that would prove specific knowledge of anyone else's immigration status. If the State cannot prove knowledge and intent, it seems unlikely to result in convictions, or at least any that would withstand appeals.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      I think you mean “not here legally” rather than “not legally here…”

      Collapse
  3. Christopher Lake

    This article highlights one aspect (which is really only one aspect of many, but a particularly striking one, for me) of "Trumpian/DeSantian" populism that is chilling, and hard for me to understand. I'm a NeverTrump, non-populist conservative who has devoutly religious friends, scattered across various denominations, who are supporters of either Trump, DeSantis, or both, and others in their vein. It pains me to say this (and I have to say it)-- there is an increasingly *inhumane and brutal* voting approach to immigration that I see among these religious friends *who are, still, to this day, some of the kindest, most giving, self-sacrificial people, on a personal level, that I've ever known*. After years with these friends, in their company, I know them quite well, and most, if not all, of them, would do anything they could to help a person in need, *on a one-to-one, personal level*-- whether a close friend like me, or a casual acquaintance, or a homeless person on the street.

    These religious friends would literally give almost anyone in need, who personally approached them, the shirts off their backs, and more, if asked. However, when it comes to our immigration system and its policies in America, I see these same devoutly religious (and Trumpian/DeSantian, populist) friends adopting ever-more-draconian views on immigration, and consciously, deliberately, voting for these populists *partially because* of said views.

    The cognitive dissonance stuns me, and I've tried to carefully, charitably, talk to some of these friends about their evolving (and negatively so, to me) views on immigration. For my attempts, I've usually gotten surprised, and even shocked, responses, along the lines of, "Come on, you know very well that we can't just have open borders and take care of everybody!" to "We are a nation of laws, and illegal immigrants have broken our laws just by coming to the U.S., and should be kicked out," and so on.

    It's honestly hard for me to understand. These religious friends are, on a personal level, to me and others, in everyday life, some of the kindest, most giving, self-sacrificial people I've ever known. In all honesty, these friends have been *much more giving and self-sacrificial* to me, as a person with Cerebral Palsy that affects my everyday living, than many of the politically leftist, "progressive" people in my area who talk, often and loudly, about the importance of helping the vulnerable and needy. When it comes to immigration and voting related to it, though, these *personally very Christ-like* friends have adopted a way of thinking and acting that I can't imagine being approved of by the Christ that I see in the Bible. It's sad, and puzzling, and not a little scary, to me.

    To be clear, I'm not meaning to beat up on people of Christian faith, or any other religious faith, with this comment, so I hope that no one will respond with knee-jerk condemnations of Christianity, Christians, or religious faith in general. I don't want my comment to be used as a pretext to bash Christians, or people of religious faith, more broadly. There are some predictably snarky commenters here whom I have noticed seem to *love *to use almost any article on any subject at The Dispatch, as a much-relished opportunity to proclaim just how stupid they think Christianity, or religious faith in general, is. I *was* that kind of loud, snarky, self-righteous atheist as a teenager, but I grew out of that phase decades ago, and to see it among *some* adult commenters at this site-- people who are usually, on other subjects, much more thoughtful and reasonable-- is, frankly, kind of sad. I've been referring, with my comment here, simply, to *one aspect* of an increasingly common trend of thinking and voting, on one issue, that I've personally seen among *one particular group* (i.e. Trumpian/Desantian populists) of my many devoutly religious friends. Thankfully, this one group's populist views on immigration are *decidedly not held* by many, many other Christians, and/or people of other religious faiths.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      Years ago I read about some study that claimed the liberals and conservatives have different circles of care. Liberals' circles of care were larger than conservatives, encompassing more groups outside immediate family and community. On the other hand, where the circles of care overlapped, conservatives tended to be more generous to people within that circle. I have no idea if that study ever was replicated but it does seem to fit what I see in society around me.

      Collapse
      1. Christopher Lake

        For many years (from Ford to Obama), my late, beloved aunt was the caretaker for the grounds of the Vice-President's residence. Beth was a committed Democrat, to the day of her death, but she did once tell me that, on average, on a personal level, the Republican politicians whom she met, over the years, were more respectful and kind to her than the Democratic politicians whom she met. That admission surprised me, coming from my very liberal aunt, but that was her honest experience, on a personal level. My experience has been somewhat similar, but at least a bit more mixed, overall, than hers.

        Collapse
        1. Bobby D

          This is my anecdotal experience as well. I live in a somewhat left-leaning community in the Northeast about an hour outside of NYC. Despite the fact that we conservatives are outnumbered by a 6:1 ratio, nearly every volunteer organization in the community is dominated by conservatives. Progressives prefer that we raise taxes and hire a few more government workers to do the work that volunteers do.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          If this pattern is real, it would be interesting to know if it extends across cultures and other nations. It could simply be an artifact of regional differences in political affiliation and culture (Southeast culture versus Northeast culture or urban versus rural) in the United States.

          Collapse
          1. Christopher Lake

            I would be interested to see a serious, thorough study of this matter, to understand it better, myself. Over the decades, I have lived in three very different U.S. states-- Alabama, born and raised (mostly rural, small town life in my early years, though I later spent much time in bigger cities, such as Birmingham), Maryland (urban, and close to metropolitan D.C.), and, for a few years in the late 2000s, New Mexico, in a suburb within the larger city of Albuquerque.

            Growing up in Alabama, I will say that, overall, I had very positive, kind, respectful treatment from, and many friendships with, liberals-- both during, and after, my own time as a leftist young man. (I became conservative in college, still in Alabama, at a radically leftist school that I did not know was *quite* so radically leftist until my first year there!) Thinking back on it, many years before Trump ran for President, I did meet more than a few Trump-esque populists in Alabama, but to me (both at the time, and now), they didn't (and don't) represent the conservatism in which I believed. Unfortunately, their populism is now dominating the Republican Party.

            In Maryland, I've had some positive experiences, and a few genuine friendships, with liberals, *but* after twenty years here, I must say that the liberals up here, by and large, are *very different* than the staunchly free speech-defending, often somewhat libertarian, liberals who were my friends back in Alabama. Most of my friends in Maryland are conservatives, though I greatly enjoy having friendships with people of widely varying beliefs, and I strive, very much, not to live in an echo chamber.

            In New Mexico, also, most of my good, close friends were conservatives, but I had positive engagements with most liberals, on an everyday basis. (New Mexico residents were quite calm, chilled-out, and friendly, across the board, in my experience, and I loved my time living there! I miss it.) Most of the people who were *really, actively there for me* though, in my daily life, as a person with Cerebral Palsy, were fellow conservatives. Honestly, I don't know if this was because I simply had more conservative friends than liberal ones in New Mexico, or, that I had more conservative friends than liberal ones *because* the conservatives were more actively "there" for me on a daily basis.

            Collapse
    2. DTruitt

      Immigration is an age old point of ideological energy for all conservatives and Republicans, not just Trump or DeSantis. If you'll recall George W. Bush attempted to enact reforms of immigration and got blown out of the water for trying, even though opinion polls then and now showed that at the grass roots level, Republicans are not-anti-immigrant and favor immigration reform. It is not that most Republicans are anti-anti-immigrant ... but the ones who care the most and get best organized to exert influence are the anti-immigrants.

      Collapse
      1. Christopher Lake

        Of course, immigration is, and long has been, an issue of discussion and debate for conservatives. For years, it was also an issue of serious discussion and debate , in an intra-Party way, among Democrats-- some of whom had fairly restrictive views on the subject, themselves, due to what they viewed, in quite Trumpian ways, as its harmful effects on American workers, but that was another lifetime ago, politically, and very few Democrats seem to remember those *older* Democratic views on immigration (conveniently?) in 2023.

        I'm not a populist, but I'm (still) a conservative, and I care enough about the matter of immigration to spend quite bit of time thinking about it and how to approach it. Having been a Republican for decades (prior to the populist take-over/transformation of the Party, that is, with Trump, DeSantis, etc.), I remember well that, at least before Trump, most Republican politicians had more thoughtful, nuanced, and humane views on immigration and immigration reform.

        Contrary to what some of my Trumpian friends might think, I'm not an advocate for "open borders." I strongly believe that we need a controlled, secure border, to the extent that we can have one, but the thoughts that I hear my Trumpian religious friends espousing-- of , basically,"All illegal immigrants to the U.S. are criminals, simply by virtue of *being* illegal immigrants, and they should be returned to their countries".... well, first of all, this view is, realistically speaking, not even *enforceable* in the U.S., and second, it's not *humane*, for many reasons, and *especially not* when it's coming from people who believe in, and seek to follow, the basic teachings of Christianity (or other traditional religious faiths).

        We can't simply allow everyone who wants to come to this country, and live here, to come and stay indefinitely. I fully affirm that. Of course, not every illegal immigrant, in every situation, who is here, should be allowed to stay. The ones who commit violent crimes here, at least, should be returned to their countries, and, I believe, as swiftly as possible. I would hope that most Democrats would agree there, on that kind of fundamental level, on immigration. (I would hope, but I'm not sure that it's the case.)

        However, for (some) people of strong religious faith (that is clearly more than just a "faith" of lip service) to vocally express, or imply, or lean strongly in the direction of, the sentiment that "all illegal immigrants to the U.S. should be viewed as criminals, and kicked out, and returned to their countries," makes very little sense to me, when I hear such views from those of my religious friends who are vocal Trump and DeSantis supporters. Conservatives can, and should, do much better than that brutal, inhumane, populist non-thinking on immigration.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    CJ

    My old (pre-Trump-lunacy) church in Florida was located in a low-income area, and since local paratransit was terrible our older, retired parishioners participated in a church-organized community shuttle program that did not ask for anything other than some form of photo ID. Doctors appointments, helping bring kids home from afterschool extracurriculars, etc.

    With the rise of Trump, our already right-wing Cuban music minister went down the rabbit hole of extremism, and among other things began making noise about reporting suspected illegal immigrants to ICE. To avoid a split in an already financially-unstable congregation the very moderate pastor (whose best friend was the music minister) just basically nuked most of our outreach programs, which is when I left.

    The church the wife and I joined afterwards was mostly founded by people driven out of other churches by similar situations. We absolutely participated in that same shuttle program. We (along with plenty of other churches) also handed out water to people waiting to vote in the hot Florida sun, which this same asshole state Rep tried to ban in 2021 - the explicit language was removed after an outcry but the remaining provisions are so unconstitutionally broad it does still expose us to criminal penalties for doing so.

    Being kind and charitable should not be a crime, anywhere. You should be able to give out food to the homeless, water to voters, car rides to the poor, etc., without having to worry that you're committing a crime and might be harassed by cops.

    Collapse
  5. Wsampson

    always happy when the GOP is in power so they can fight against having too much government....wait, that's just another lie of the conservative religion...never mind

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    AlainL

    More hypocrisy. Over the last 2 years Florida has seen the largest immigration from Cuba in a generation. Over 150,000 arrived. Cubans enter illegally but are processed and given immediate parole. A year later they get a green card and a couple of years after that they are full voting citizens. They are the immigrant envy of the world. And they largely vote GOP. They don't get flown to Marthas Vineyard.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Dusty

    “It’s like a rocket launcher when you needed a fly swatter,”

    That phrase sums up much of my frustration with the conservative movement and the GOP nowadays.

    If you look at the "three-legged stool" of Reagan conservatism - social conservatism, free markets, strong defense - the only one that the Nat Cons and populists hold to is the first one. But they even do that poorly and stupidly.

    There are some in the anti-Trump/anti-populist/Rockefeller conservative (whatever they want to call themselves) sphere who argue that the conservatives should just ditch social conservatism and not worry so much about the culture wars. I don't agree with that. I think there are some areas of the culture war that conservatives not only should engage in, but that they can win in.

    The transgender debate is a good example of this where conservatives have a pretty good position and then screw it up by using a rocket launcher instead of a fly swatter. Biological males in female sports? Winning issue. Restricting what can be taught about sexuality to little kids? Winning issue (some polls even had Florida *Democrats* supporting the merits of the law). Restricting gender transition surgeries for minors? Winning issue.

    Banning drag shows entirely? Losing issue. Banning books from the library? Losing issue. And the ability of conservatives to always clench defeat from the jaws of victory by pushing too far and being absolutist on everything continues to amaze me.

    Well, I guess that's not true. I've come to expect it and am learning to live with it. But immigration is another issue where conservatives have a pretty good position if they could stay sane and nuanced about it, but of course take it to the stupid extreme.

    Collapse
  8. Very Old Grumpy Guy

    Weird. A church following Christ's teachings - and standing up for them. I knew they existed. We just never hear about them.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dusty

      I'd suggest that most churches do so, to various degrees and according to their teachings. You don't hear about them because feeding the poor, being charitable, or sheltering the homeless aren't controversial or political (unless you you want to talk local politics of where one or can't put a homeless shelter). In other words. they don't provide much fodder for comment sections on political websites for people who want to skewer their ideological opponents.

      Collapse
      1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

        Even though I am a none, my intuition matches what you say. Wouldn't it be great if we heard more about this?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Dusty

          It's a bit ironic that when you do hear about them it's usually in some context of them getting protested for their cultural views - evidence that it's not just the right that's obsessed with culture wars. I'm thinking of Samaritan's Purse being protested by LGBT activists for setting up a hospital in Central Park during the thick of Covid. Or the Salvation Army's bell-ringers getting the boot because the organization still holds traditional views on marriage.

          Here in Connecticut there's a small, independent rural hospital that is struggling to stay open. Covenant Health, a Catholic hospital provider from Massachusetts, last year expressed interest in taking the hospital over and incorporating it into its system. And Covenant was met with protests because, as a Catholic hospital, they wouldn't provide abortions or transgender care. Services that, if I remember the reporting correctly, the hospital *didn't even provide in the first place*. But, better to have no hospital at all than a Catholic hospital, I suppose.

          Covenant pulled out last month, citing financial issues I believe. But I'm sure the protests and the pending government hearings didn't help matters.

          Collapse
          1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

            In a nation of 330 million people, if 5% have bad reality detectors, motivation, and an inability to think through even the simplest of implications, one would expect a large absolute number of actions that make no sense.

            I focus on the logic, or lack thereof of my local environment. I am pretty happy about the hyper-local. I do not concern myself with stupid things done by the fine people of Alabama or San Francisco, because I assume they will either sort it out, or they won't. Either way, it won't affect me.

            I know that is selfish, but I have to ration my mental energy.

            Collapse
  9. True Northerner

    "As followers of Christ, we are living out our faith most clearly when we answer the call to care for those in need: widows, orphans, immigrants and the poor.”

    And the term the man uses for illegal aliens (those who have entered the country illegally or stayed beyond their visa expiration date) is "(undocumented) immigrant". Which gets him off the hook. It is well-meaning people like this man who sustain an environment in which human trafficking thrives.

    A better approach would be to sponsor immigrants as was done for refugees from Europe after World War II.

    Collapse
    1. Rch22

      Giving someone a ride to church or to a food pantry is supporting trafficking? What am I missing here?

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      BloggerBarbie

      What did happen to sponsoring? That was going on in the '70s with the Southeast Asian refugees as well (I remember families coming in through churches and of course, the charity drives). When did that stop?

      At any rate, it's not exclusive. Even if you can't afford to sponsor (or whatever the reason is), taking an elderly neighbor to church shouldn't be a crime.

      Collapse