1. Meeting the Sojourners:
A Pastor’s Guide to Immigration Issues
Name: Jonathan Covey
Faculty Advisor: Robert C.
Date: 12/14/2015
Project: Senior Thesis
Précis
Immigration has evolved into a highly complex area of law which winds its way into many
aspects of American churches. The purpose of this paper is to disentangle many confusing
aspects of immigration law for pastors and religious leaders so that they can effectively keep
their congregations from getting into legal trouble. A significant focus is placed upon the laws
surrounding federal alien harboring statutes and what constitutes harboring in the federal
courts. The classic tension between Christian compassion and upholding the law is also
acknowledged and integrated into a helpful, Biblically-sourced discussion on the topic.

2. Table of Contents
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………………….………. 3
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
RIGHTS OF LAWFUL IMMIGRANTS ……………………………………………………………….. 9
ISSUES WITH UNLAWFUL IMMIGRANTS ………………………………………………………..11
Employing Unlawful Immigrants …………………………………………………………..11
Religious Workers ….………………………………………………………………….………….12
Harboring ……………………………………………………………………………………………..13
SecondCircuitDefinition …………………………………………………………………………… 17
FifthCircuitDefinition ………………………………………………………………………...18
SixthCircuitDefinition …………………………………………………………………………19
NinthCircuitDefinition ………………………………………………………………………..20
Knowledge or Reckless Disregard ……………………………………………………..21
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
CITATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28

3. Table of Authorities
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953)
United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2481 (U.S. 1950)
Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 96 S. Ct. 1883, 48 L. Ed. 1976 U.S. LEXIS 122 (U.S. 1976)
United States v. Lopez, 521 F.2d 437, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13989 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975)
United States v. Lopez, 521 F.2d 437, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13989 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1975)
U.S. v. Shiu Sun Shum, 496 F.3d 390, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19104 (5th Cir. 2007)
Susnjar v. United States, 27 F.2d 223, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3368 (6th Cir. Ohio 1928)
United States v. Belevin-Ramales, 458 F. Supp. 2d 409, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75969 (E.D. Ky.
2006)
United States v. Evans, 333 U.S. 483, 68 S. Ct. 634, 92 L. Ed. 823, 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2409 (U.S.
1948)
United States v. Acosta De Evans, 531 F.2d 428, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12879 (9th Cir. Cal. 1976)

4. Meeting the Sojourners: A Pastor’s Guide to Immigration Issues in the Church
INTRODUCTION
The United States is often referred to as a “nation of immigrants.” People all over the world
flock to the United States in order to do business and settle in it as the superpower in world
politics and national economic prosperity. Accordingly, immigration continues to flourish in
this country and the laws put in place to regulate the flow of people are constantly being
revised by the government to meet new needs and solve new problems.
Immigration, whether as a conversational topic, political problem, or legal issue continues to
prove itself thorny. It poses serious moral, ethical, and legal dilemmas for pastors and churches
who struggle to stay abreast of this highly complex area of law. At the same time, it is widely
recognized that these church leaders are uniquely equipped to minister to people who are
trying to find a path to citizenship.
Churches often embody the heart of a community’s response to unauthorized immigrants. The
leaders of these churches hold a wide range of opinions on how to deal with both lawful
immigrants and illegal aliens and they need to clearly understand the liabilities they incur as
they seek to minister to immigrants. The clear blessing of the United States is that ministry and
civic duty are congenial; Christian compassion and the law are not diametrically opposed.

5. BACKGROUND
The U.S. government is a two-tier, three-branch democratic republic. It is not only a
democracy, in which the people rule and govern, but also a republic, in which elected
representatives rather than every single American create, execute, and enforce laws and
policies. The Constitution allows the individual states to remain self-governing to a certain
extent. It also provides for a higher authority, known as the federal government, to maintain
power over all the states in certain, limited areas. This is the United States’ two-tier system of
government: Federal and State.
Because federal and state laws are created separately and by different legislative bodies, it is
possible that they may conflict. The Constitution proclaims itself to be “the Supreme Law of the
Land…Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding…”1 This statement, commonly known
as the Supremacy Clause, declare that the Constitution is superior to state law. Therefore, if a
state law contradicts a federal law, the federal law takes precedence. But if a state law, though
different from a federal law, does not conflict with the federal law, then both may happily
coexist.
Immigration law is federal in nature. If a person from another country wishes to visit or settle
in the United States, then that person is subject to federal immigration law. In our two-tier,
three branch systemof government, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 (INA) sets
forth immigration law and policy. The INA is the immigration law created by Congress.
Specifically, it is Title 8 of the United States Code. When a person is subject to or elects to
undergo immigration proceedings, his case or matter will be adjudicated as set forth by the

6. INA. Like many other laws, the INA has changed quite often and continues to evolve to meet
certain needs and problems.
1996 Changes
Some significant changes took place in 1996 to the INA. Specifically, three Congressional acts
comprised what were collectively referred to as the 1996 Amendments. One of the
amendments was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA).
This immigration enforcement bill passed Congress as part of the yearly appropriations process,
laying out the government’s spending for fiscal year 1997. The bill instituted a 3- or 10-year bar
on returning to the United States for immigrants caught without proper documentation and
required people fleeing persecution to apply for asylumstatus within one year of arriving in the
country—one in five asylum seekers is currently denied because of this deadline. It also created
the 287(g) program, through which local police can be deputized to act as immigration officials.
IIRAIRA came just two years after the passage of California’s Proposition 187, which—though
later struck down by the courts—restricted undocumented immigrants from accessing any
state public benefits. Proposition 187 was indicative of a wave of restrictionist and anti-
immigrant sentiment in the United States during the mid-1990s. Congress used this opening to
expand limitations on immigration, passing IIRAIRA in the same year as a welfare reform bill
that restricted noncitizens from accessing most public benefits.
President Bill Clinton won re-election in 1996, while Republicans maintained their majorities in
both the House and the Senate.

7. 2001 Changes
In late 2000 and early 2001, Congress passed the Legal Immigration Family Equity, or LIFE Act.
The LIFE Act and its amendments furthered the idea that family unity is the bedrock of
immigration policy. The bill extended the cutoff for the 245(i) program, allowing immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens and green-card holders already approved for residency to adjust their
status to permanent residency without first leaving the United States, even if they had
previously entered or worked in the country without legal status.
The bill also created a temporary V visa category to allow spouses and children of green-card
holders to reunite with their family in the United States rather than face long separations as
they wait for a visa. Similar to IIRAIRA, these bills passed as part of the yearly budgetary
appropriations process.
2010 and Beyond
2010 saw the proposal of the infamous Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, or
DREAM, Act. The primary objective of this legislation was to create a multi-phase process for
undocumented immigrants in the United States that would first grant conditional residency and
upon meeting further qualifications, permanent residency…….
Please email Jonathan Covey at jmcovey1@gmail.com in order to request a full copy of this writing
sample. All requests are subject to approval by the author.