ICE targets Church Leaders and Christians Fleeing Persecution

[Jazman]

These are clear examples of early Christians appealing to government leaders—not to demand special privileges, but to testify to the truth and to call for justice. They didn’t expect Rome to be Christian. But they still said, “This is wrong,” as part of their witness.

To point back to the original reason for posting the article... this is all I hoped all of us Christians could do; say, "something's wrong here... this doesn't seem right. No one, let alone Christians who came here legally, should be treated that way"
But I've understood before and do again, that a lot of my brothers and sisters in Christ are ok with arbitrary, shady, degrading, little to no-due-process, lawful-procedure-be-chucked because! - mistreatment of even legal immigrants/migrants...

[JohnH]

ICE isn't persecuting people in America for being Christians, though.

ICE is engaging in normal enforcement of immigration law and engaging in normal detention activity. It is not targeted at Christians. And it doesn't seem particularly unusual or cruel (at least to me), but then again I don't see governments enforcing migration law and having national boundaries/borders as an unethical, immoral, or unjust thing.

[Bootstrap]

ICE isn't persecuting people in America for being Christians, though.

ICE is engaging in normal enforcement of immigration law and engaging in normal detention activity. It is not targeted at Christians. And it doesn't seem particularly unusual or cruel (at least to me), but then again I don't see governments enforcing migration law and having national boundaries/borders as an unethical, immoral, or unjust thing.

JohnH, I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to call this "normal enforcement" or "not particularly unusual or cruel".

These Iranian Christians were not sneaking across the border or violating the law. They came through the CBP One process—an official legal channel—and were complying fully with all requirements while their asylum claims were pending.

Normally, when people in this situation need to be detained, they’re treated as civil asylum seekers. They get a notice to appear, a chance to call their lawyer, and time to prepare themselves and their families. Even under strict immigration enforcement, it was common to let people arrange care for their children and pack a bag, rather than being surrounded by six to eight armed federal agents in tactical gear, helmets, and masks on a public sidewalk.

One of these women collapsed from a panic attack while her husband stood handcuffed and unable to help her. They weren’t even allowed to call anyone or gather their things. If that isn’t cruel, I’m not sure what word fits.

Yes, governments have the right to enforce immigration laws and protect borders. But that doesn’t justify any level of fear, humiliation, or traumatizing displays of force, especially against people who fled religious persecution and were following every rule.

And it’s not just about Christians. This kind of treatment is cruel when it happens to anyone—Muslim families, secular dissidents, or people fleeing gangs. If we take seriously what it means to love our neighbors as ourselves, we shouldn’t look the other way just because it doesn’t happen to us.

Whether you think immigration laws should be stricter or more welcoming, surely we can agree that people seeking refuge from persecution deserve compassion and due process—not a counterterrorism-style raid that leaves them terrified and humiliated.

[JohnH]

These Iranian Christians were not sneaking across the border or violating the law. They came through the CBP One process—an official legal channel—and were complying fully with all requirements while their asylum claims were pending.

You said you wanted to focus the conversation on Christians fleeing persecution, but you brought up something irrelevant to that, so I'll respond to it.

Mexico isn't a country where Christians are being persecuted, generally speaking, and there isn't a reason for Christians in Mexico to "flee persecution" to the U.S. border. The process you describe actually works like this:

- Cross the border illegally (you and I may debate how "illegal" it is) at a non-official port of entry, i.e., swim across the Rio Grande river, and so forth. Upon jumping the border or being caught by Border Patrol, open the CBP One app and tap the entry "I'm here to seek asylum", get an asylum appointment years in the future, and then claim this is a "legal entry". I don't think it was a legal entry, because no Christians needed to flee Mexico to seek asylum in the U.S. because of fear of being persecuted for being Christian.

- Since the asylum claim takes years (if ever) to be processed, one had tenuous legal status (under the prior administration) and could do things such as apply for lucrative government benefits and so on.

- The current administration has decided to deny these claims (legally, using proper legal process - the CBP One app, as part of an asylum seeker using it, required them to submit to communications including notices of removal or denial of asylum claims to be via the app or other electronic means, with it the asylum seekers' responsibility to maintain this access and check up on it).

- Their claims are no longer "pending", but are denied, and the asylum seekers are now subject to immediate removal.

Normally, when people in this situation need to be detained, they’re treated as civil asylum seekers.

There is no "normally" here because the situation over the last 4 years wasn't normal.

They get a notice to appear, a chance to call their lawyer, and time to prepare themselves and their families. Even under strict immigration enforcement, it was common to let people arrange care for their children and pack a bag, rather than being surrounded by six to eight armed federal agents in tactical gear, helmets, and masks on a public sidewalk.

There is no reason someone should expect to be handled with kid gloves when their asylum claims are adjudicated invalid (which should have been obvious - nobody is fleeing persecution from Mexico to the U.S. for being persecuted for being Christian, so why would they expect their claims to be accepted?). There is a gigantic problem in America with 10 - 30 million aliens here who do not have any kind of valid status, many of whom already received notice they need to leave the country. They haven't.

I don't see what's wrong with federal agents being "armed". Is there something wrong, in your mind, with ICE / CBP agents being armed? Is there something wrong with them having helmets? Is it wrong for them to be on a "public sidewalk"? Where would you prefer they conduct detentions?

One of these women collapsed from a panic attack while her husband stood handcuffed and unable to help her. They weren’t even allowed to call anyone or gather their things. If that isn’t cruel, I’m not sure what word fits.

I would be in the exact same situation if I did something to earn detention, like arguing with a cop at a traffic stop, being pulled over driving drunk - I would be detained and tossed in the back of a cop car. Having a panic attack would be irrelevant. I would not be allowed to "gather my things". If my kids were in the car, they'd simply call CPS, who might or might not contact a relative. That's how detention works.

Yes, governments have the right to enforce immigration laws and protect borders. But that doesn’t justify any level of fear, humiliation, or traumatizing displays of force, especially against people who fled religious persecution and were following every rule.

I don't think they were "following every rule". Why did they leave Mexico to enter the U.S.?

[Bootstrap]

Yes, governments have the right to enforce immigration laws and protect borders. But that doesn’t justify any level of fear, humiliation, or traumatizing displays of force, especially against people who fled religious persecution and were following every rule.

I don't think they were "following every rule". Why did they leave Mexico to enter the U.S.?

Because the US government said they were allowed to. And helped them do so.

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I am concerned for you. I think the things we express here have consequences for us. I don't want to see you treated the way these people were treated either. To me, what you write seems unfairly judgmental of them, and says that massive cruelty toward them is OK. That seems just wrong to me.

Hebrews 13:

Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters. Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it. Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.

Matthew 25:

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[JohnH]

Because the US government said they were allowed to.

Governments often change their minds about things. There was plenty of notice before Trump assumed office, and he said what he was going to do. I would have advised someone who was planning to seek asylum in order to enter the U.S. to rethink doing so, particularly if their asylum claim were a sham claim, such as the claim of anyone entering from Mexico with a religious persecution claim would be.

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I am concerned for you. I think the things we express here have consequences for us. I don't want to see you treated the way these people were treated either.

Is that some kind of threat? What exactly are you saying? I think it's okay to have an opinion about the asylum process (such as observing that Mexico is not a country where Christians need to flee religious persecution there) that doesn't result in "all these people have an inalienable legal right to stay in the United States permanently".

There is also a certain hypocrisy to the great deal of concern expressed about this that I saw sorely lacking in 2020. In 2020, those of us with religious concerns against vaccines made out of aborted baby parts didn't seem to get much concern at all from folks like you about being persecuted for our beliefs, including being unable to send our children to school or have a job. I think that kind of thing was pretty serious back then, but back then many people like you simply said we should "submit to the government", dismissed our religious beliefs as invalid or unscientific. Boot, I don't feel like you would have cared about me or my family back then if I had been destitute or unable to find a job due to being unwilling to accept such a vaccine. And I think that's a very sad commentary, but that's simply how I feel. I did not see any concern for us back then.

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

So perhaps that's exactly what's happening: five years on, what is the result of an attitude of "you must do whatever the government orders you to do and you must believe whatever the governments orders you to believe"? I find myself much less agitated about feigned concern about "persecuted Christians", particularly when I dig a little deeper and find there isn't a valid claim of persecution in Mexico at all.

Meanwhile, here in the actual United States, Amish people are being exiled from New York State because the state won't allow them to conduct their schools in accordance with their religious beliefs, and they lost their appeals in front of the appellate courts as well. Have you expressed any concern at all for that degree of religious persecution? If not, why not? Do you actually have concern for all persecuted Christians in America, or just ones that fit an agenda of supporting a particular political position on immigration?

[Bootstrap]

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I am concerned for you. I think the things we express here have consequences for us. I don't want to see you treated the way these people were treated either.

Is that some kind of threat? What exactly are you saying?

Certainly not a threat that I would do anything to you. I am not God. But I think it’s worth wrestling honestly with these biblical texts. The Bible says a lot about how we speak about others and the judgments we make. That includes sins of speech—things like contempt, harshness, and lack of mercy—even when we think our opinions are justified.

I’m only saying I believe these things matter spiritually, and we should take them seriously for our own sake.

[JohnH]

Certainly not a threat that I would do anything to you. I am not God. But I think it’s worth wrestling honestly with these biblical texts. The Bible says a lot about how we speak about others and the judgments we make. That includes sins of speech—things like contempt, harshness, and lack of mercy—even when we think our opinions are justified.

I also think sins of speech includes twisting words around to fit a political agenda or being very selective in what is talked about. For example, I think it's sophistry to say "legal asylum seekers" when they actually entered illegally from Mexico. But you can have your political opinion, and I can have mine. I hope we can both respect each other enough to not accuse the other of being in "sin" for having our own political opinions on this matter.

I’m only saying I believe these things matter spiritually, and we should take them seriously for our own sake.

I think they do, too. When I originally heard about this, I thought they were Iranian refugees who were somehow flown into the U.S. after somehow escaping Iran. ("Escaping Iran" would be a bit of a misnomer, since pretty much any Iranian can go get on a plane to a neutral third country, but perhaps these particular refugees had their passports confiscated or weren't allowed to travel or something.)

But then I find out they actually were in Mexico, and decided to enter the U.S. - suddenly, the entire narrative that they're "entering the U.S. because they're fleeing persecution in Iran" falls apart, and I have a hard time putting much confidence in anything else at that point. It's no longer about Christians fleeing persecution. It's about a particular political position on mass migration.

If I find myself someday fleeing persecution but I end up in a country that perhaps is rather poor or doesn't offer a lot of economic opportunity, but also is not oppressing me "for righteousness' sake" and is allowing me to stay, I would not decide to enter the next neighboring country on dubious legal grounds, or if I did, I would be honest that I were doing so simply for economic reasons and reasons of personal gain. And I would also be realistic that things can change, quickly - and then we might have to leave again, and we want to avoid being a bad Christian witness by unnecessarily involving ourselves with law enforcement.

I feel bad if I get pulled over for a headlight that had just gone out (which happened a few months ago), and I happened to not have my wallet on me either. Oops. So I ended up "detained" (legally speaking) for 30 minutes. The officer didn't care when my wife showed up 10 minutes later with my wallet, either. I got cited for operating with a license since I didn't produce it. As a rule, I try to avoid ending up in situations like that, and a not proud of myself when I do. (The officer made the detention last a while because the BMV records for the vehicle had the body style and color incorrect, and he scrutinized it rather carefully.) I don't think it's productive to pitch a fit when this happens or act like the government is out to get you, even though that is the overall zeitgeist of society these days.

And yes, as a matter of good governance, I would generally advocate that the police should be willing to accept ID from someone's spouse who goes and grabs their wallet for them - but as a matter of law, the officer was certainly within his rights, because legally speaking, it's an offense in my state to operate a vehicle with your physical drivers' license being present on you. I think that as Christians, we shouldn't be too quick to protest detention, particularly when lawful. Obviously, how lawful these migration detentions is a political debate, and I think you'd be welcome to have further political debate about that in the Politics subforum.

[Bootstrap]

Certainly not a threat that I would do anything to you. I am not God. But I think it’s worth wrestling honestly with these biblical texts. The Bible says a lot about how we speak about others and the judgments we make. That includes sins of speech—things like contempt, harshness, and lack of mercy—even when we think our opinions are justified.

I also think sins of speech includes twisting words around to fit a political agenda or being very selective in what is talked about. For example, I think it's sophistry to say "legal asylum seekers" when they actually entered illegally from Mexico. But you can have your political opinion, and I can have mine. I hope we can both respect each other enough to not accuse the other of being in "sin" for having our own political opinions on this matter.

I’m not accusing you of being in sin just for having a different opinion. I am saying that how we talk about people matters spiritually, especially when we make accusations that aren’t true.

It isn’t sophistry to say “legal asylum seekers.” They came through the CBP One process—an established legal channel to request asylum—and they were complying fully while their claims were pending. That is simply a fact, whether or not you agree with the policy.

What concerns me most is how they were treated. Instead of any respectful process, they were surrounded in broad daylight by six to eight armed federal agents in black tactical gear, helmets, and masks—as if they were violent terrorists. One woman collapsed in a panic attack on the sidewalk while her husband stood there handcuffed, unable to help her. This was cruel and humiliating, and completely unnecessary.

It feels like every time I try to talk about this reality, you flood the conversation with extra suspicions, reframe it as partisan, imply I am saying things that I do not, and accuse me of twisting words. That makes it almost impossible to have an honest discussion about what happened. The basic facts get lost in all the noise.

I'm willing to face persecution as a Christian, but I hope we aren’t normalizing policies and tactics now that could be used against any of us later. Once you build the machinery of raids and camps, it can be used against us too.

[JohnH]

What concerns me most is how they were treated. Instead of any respectful process, they were surrounded in broad daylight by six to eight armed federal agents in black tactical gear, helmets, and masks—as if they were violent terrorists. One woman collapsed in a panic attack on the sidewalk while her husband stood there handcuffed, unable to help her. This was cruel and humiliating, and completely unnecessary.

The last traffic stop I had, I got pulled over and the officer had on black tactical gear. The officer was armed. He then called for another officer to show up who also had on black tactical gear. (It turns out the reason was that the registration for the vehicle mistakenly had it listed as a different color and a different body style; someone at the BMV typed in a number wrong.)

I don't think federal agents charged with detaining people for removal or detaining them for other purposes are being "disrespectful" by being armed, or by being in black tactical gear. That's become somewhat the norm for all kinds of law enforcement. I do think we could have a political discussion about whether it's best for society to have a different style of law enforcement uniforms than black tactical gear. My personal political opinion is it would be better for them to have old fashioned "cop" type of uniforms instead of uniforms that are more military-styled. But my opinions haven't prevailed, and overall, law enforcement tends to have a tactical look to them; this is a change that has gradually happened since 9/11.

I think it's reasonable for federal law enforcement officers to wear masks. First of all, quite a few people thought it was perfectly fine to impose masks on all of society in 2020, and there were no complaints then about either protesters in the streets or law enforcement wearing masks - at least not from the same quarters complaining about it now. I don't think it's disrespectful for federal agents to wear masks if they are doing so lawfully and for a good reason. I think wanting to keep their families safe from harassment is a good reason. ICE Federal agents aren't required to provide their personal details to anyone who asks as they go about their official duties when conducting detentions.

I don't see how it's disrespectful to wear a helmet.

I'm sorry the woman collapsed with a panic attack. Did she survive it? Her husband was also detained, and when people are in detention, they aren't released just because one of them has a medical emergency. Instead, law enforcement officers are charged with taking care of someone in their detention, including calling for medical help as necessary. I cannot find any news articles saying these people were denied necessary medical care. Having panic attacks when being detained is somewhat normal, and I assume federal agents are well-trained in how to handle these sorts of situations.

I don't think the intention was to be "cruel and humiliating". Detaining people and placing them in detention isn't easy. Perhaps a bit more respect and understanding towards law enforcement officers doing their jobs would be a good witness for Christians and the Church.