Religious Tenets Not an Exemption From Immigration Act, Judge Rules

Religious grounds cannot be used to protect employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers in violation of U.S. immigration laws, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled Monday.

Dismissing a suit filed by the American Friends Service Committee, commonly known as the Quakers, U.S. District Judge James M. Ideman said he was not persuaded by an argument that the immigration laws prevent the religion from fulfilling its tenet to befriend and help all “strangers,” whoever they may be.

“The court is of the opinion that the government should prevail and will prevail and I’ll issue a written opinion within a few days,” said U.S. District Judge James M. Ideman.

Nearly 200 organizations and individuals--ranging from the United Methodist Church and the Commission of Social Action of Reform Judaism to the Sisters of Mercy of Burlingame and the Southern California Ecumenical Council--joined in filing friend-of-the court briefs supporting the Quakers.

Justice Department attorneys responded that if the Friends committee were granted the exemption, it would undermine the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act because Congress had determined the primary reason aliens came to this country was to seek work.

Carlos Holguin, an attorney from the National Center for Immigrants’ Rights representing the Quakers, said the decision to dismiss the suit would be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“This was just the first step in a long process,” Holguin said.

Founded in 1917

The American Friends Service Committee is a social action group created in 1917 by members of the Religious Society of Friends in Philadelphia, but is independent of the Quaker church itself. Headquartered in Philadelphia, it has local offices in Pasadena, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 for its efforts to aid war refugees.

The committee has objected to the 1986 immigration law, which requires employers to determine whether job seekers are authorized to work in the United States. The law forbids employers to hire those who are unable or unwilling to produce such documentation.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service can seek criminal penalties against employers who hire illegal aliens and levy fines of up to $10,000 for each illegal worker on the employer’s payroll. To date, more than 720 employers have been fined.

When the Friends committee filed suit nine months ago, the group’s national chairman, Stephen G. Cary, said the organization was not complying with the law. Thus far, no penalties have been imposed on the organization.

But attorney Holguin said if the Friends committee obeyed the law, it would be participating in “driving undocumented immigrants and refugees out of the United States by depriving them of employment and, therefore, the ability to obtain the basic necessities of life.”

The committee sought a ruling that obeying the law would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. The group asserted that if the law were enforced, it would coerce them “to engage in acts violative and repugnant to their sincerely held, profound religious beliefs.”

Linda Wendtland, a Justice Department lawyer who argued the government’s case, declined to comment on Ideman’s decision to dismiss the suit.

But in court, Wendtland argued that complying with the law would not have a severe impact on the Friends committee because there were other ways they could help undocumented immigrants, such as giving them free food and shelter.

She also asserted that even if the court determined there was a serious impact, there was “a compelling state interest justifying the burden imposed on the exercise of religious freedom.”

Intent of Congress

Wendtland said Congress had made a determination that the prospect of employment was “the magnet” that drew immigrants here and that it would be inappropriate for Judge Ideman to scrutinize what Congress had done.

Ideman apparently agreed with the government, for at one point he told Holguin: “Who is this court to second guess Congress? . . . They are far more able to conduct legislative fact-finding than this court.”

Holguin noted that Congress had provided for certain exemptions to the 1986 law, such as those granted to some farm laborers and to “casual employees,” including some domestic workers and persons with specialized skills who are allowed to work for brief periods in the U.S. film industry.