GA 2010: Presbyterian General Assembly votes to stand with immigrant Presbyterians in their hour of need
Written by The Presbyterian Outlook   
Friday, 09 July 2010 14:07
By a vote of 420-205, the 219th General Assembly voted in favor of a commissioners’ resolution dealing with issues of immigration. Commissioners’ resolution 11-11 asks that Presbyterians “refrain from holding national meetings at hotels in those states where travel by immigrant Presbyterians or Presbyterians of color or Hispanic ancestry might subject them to harassment.”

 

Those speaking for the main motion included Trina Zelle, a minister from Grand Canyon Presbytery and author of the original resolution, as well as two former General Assembly moderators -- Rick Ufford-Chase and John Fife. Much of the discussion surrounding the resolution concerned those who are most affected by the new laws in Arizona, as well as those who would be affected by these proposed economic measures. Fife assured commissioners that the main motion was brought by the Hispanic congregations, pastors and elders in Arizona and New Mexico. Fife urged its passage saying, “Racism must be confronted with action immediately, not after study and collaboration.”Former moderator Rick Ufford-Chase speaks to the assembly in favor of Commissioners Resolution 11-11 regarding immigration

 

A substitute motion was offered, which would have removed any mention of the PC(USA) avoiding doing business in states with such laws, but that was defeated by a vote of 390 - 288.

 

Jon Ashley, from de Cristo presbytery, presented the minority report and suggested that rather than boycott and leave, the appropriate response is engagement in a system that is currently broken, working for its transformation.

 

Zelle reminded commissioners that for many Presbyterians the immigration crisis is not an option to be studied, but a daily reality to be endured. “What is being communicated when we choose to accommodate injustice rather than confront it?” she asked.

 

“Our work will always be to stand with those who are most marginalized,” urged Ufford-Chase. He noted the PCUSA’s historic concern for those who stand on the margins of society.

 

Commissioner Al Sandalow of Central Washington brought up a practical question in the midst of the discussion. “If this passes, and Pennsylvania passes a similar law, will we have to move the next General Assembly?” The next General Assembly, in 2012, is scheduled to be held in Pittsburgh.

 

In a news conference after the assembly had adjourned for the night, the PC(USA)’s stated clerk, Gradye Parsons, said if Pennsylvania were to pass such a law, “we would look at our contract,” to see if the denomination could get out of it, and would try to follow the assembly’s directive.
Trackback(0)
Your Responses (6)Add Comment
Response from Nancy Field, July 29, 2010
NE
To take a stand against racial profiling wherever it occurs is the Christian response. To allow fear and distrust of government and our neighbors smacks of Germany during the war years. Our legal citizens and residents of color are swept up by such legislation as much as any who are suspected of being in the US illegally. Don't let our fear of those involved in the drug "wars" allow us to become the third reich in our time.
Response from Mike Zorn, July 19, 2010
...
Once again, the GA has allowed itself to be taken over by activists with agendas. This is one of those agendas.

Polls show that a majority of Americans support the bill. A majority of Americans support legal immigration, not illegal.

A boycott, or moving the next GA from Pennsylvania, is little more than standing in the corner, holding your breath until you turn blue. By 2012, the only way to uphold the "principles" would be to hold the GA in Mexico.

I'm encouraged that the commentors also oppose the GA's stance.
Response from Jane Cope, July 19, 2010
Uniontown, Ohio
The action taken in responce to the Arizona immigration law about to be inacted is a slap in the face to all our legal immigrants from all over the world who followed the law and spent the time and effort to come here legally. Helping those who are suffering is our work . Encouraging the breaking of our laws is not.
Response from Steve Woods, July 11, 2010
Carefree, AZ
As a PCUSA member and Arizona Taxpayer I can honestly say I am now perscuted by my own brothers and sisters.
Interstingly, the statement "Rather than boycott and leave, the appropriate response is engagement in a system that is currently broken, working for its transformation." demonsrates that PCUSA has choosen "boycott and leave" over tranformation.
This is the same struggle our chruch (Desert Hills Presbyterian) has had with PCUSA. Having finally asked to be allowed to leave PCUSA we are told we need "Pastoring" because we should stay and work for transformation. Yet PCUSA obviously condones this behavior for themselves.
Thank you God for continued clarity.

Response from Brad Lillmars, July 09, 2010
Cave Creek, AZ
It is truly a sad day when the august body of the PCUSA is begiled and misled by proactive racists that believe in social injustice rather than the rule of law. Now, if the members of your following enjoy speeding through our towns and giving everyone a "moon", then I agree with having them avoid Arizona. They will be pulled over and asked for identification. Hopefully, they will be American citizens and just put in jail. If they are illegally here in the US without proper identification, they will be turned over to ICE and released.

Your actions are setting the Presbyterian Church back 150 years for law abiding Christians. Maybe it is time to come to Arizona and set up a "help mission" in the newly declared "off limits" zone in southern Arizona were the bulk of immigrants are flowing through. I'm sure they could use some fresh water, a little food and some cool airconditioned rest areas on their trek to find a better life. Those 60 pound marijuana packs get awful heavy in this Arizona heat.
Response from Barry Jenkins, July 09, 2010
Alabama
This is a very odd action to take. Clearly, this is a response to the issues the Arizona immigration law has brought to the national attention. So I must ask,what "injustice" are we speaking against? The immigration law has not even gone into effect. Not one person has been harassed or profiled based on the color of their skin under this law. Yet we just approved an action which could hurt a lot of people financially based only on the potential of harassment or racial profiling. It seems to me we are doing the very thing we claim to abhor...we are acting unjustly.

If we really want to make a difference, maybe we shouldn't be punishing the innocents who will be hurt by an economic boycott. Maybe we should be applying pressure to the President and congress to enact real immigration reform. We are wasting our witness by crying over something that arguably may never happen while we should be screaming over the inaction of our federal government on this issue.

I agree we need to reach out with compassion and love to those who are hurting over the threat of the AZ law. And we should work hard to improve the desperate plight of those who find it necessary to enter this country illegally to work. We should not ignore their needs. But our social justice outrage should be focused on the US government, not those who are struggling to deal with the very real and complex issues confronting their communities along the border.

The assembly's action on this was irresponsible and hurtful. It may even end up hurting (by killing jobs) some of the immigrant workers that our boycott is designed to protect.

Write a Response
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters

NOTE: Your response to an article will be reviewed by staff before it is made available to the public for reading. The delay may be a few minutes or it may be as long as 24 hours.

busy