Fact check: How do churches determine which illegal immigrants to provide sanctuary to?

1. Summary of the results

The decision of which illegal immigrants to provide sanctuary to is a complex one, and churches consider various factors, including vulnerability and need for protection ^{[1] [2]}. Some churches, like People of Hope Church, focus on individuals who have come to the U.S. out of fear, have built lives and families, and are peaceful, contributing members of the community ^[3]. The process of determining who to provide sanctuary to may also involve assessing the individual's or family's circumstances, such as fleeing domestic violence or persecution ^[2]. Additionally, churches may consider their own capacity and resources when deciding whether to offer sanctuary ^[4]. Legal risks and considerations are also a crucial factor, with churches advised to assess their legal risk with a lawyer and be prepared for the possibility of ICE agents showing up at their church ^[5]. The New Sanctuary Coalition provides volunteers for legal assistance and relocation, and notes that providing sanctuary is not considered harboring someone if the individual is not being concealed ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

A key aspect missing from the original statement is the historical context of churches offering sanctuary to immigrants, which suggests that the decision is often based on the individual's or family's vulnerability and need for protection ^[1]. Another missing context is the variety of factors that churches consider when determining who to provide sanctuary to, including the individual's circumstances, the church's capacity and resources, and legal risks and considerations ^{[5] [3] [2] [4]}. Furthermore, the original statement does not mention the role of organizations like the New Sanctuary Coalition, which provides support and resources for churches offering sanctuary ^[6]. Alternative viewpoints, such as the perspective of immigration authorities or local communities, are also not represented in the original statement ^{[7] [8]}. It is also important to note that some churches may not have the facilities to offer refuge, suggesting that the decision may be based on capacity and resources ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be oversimplifying the complex process of determining which illegal immigrants to provide sanctuary to, as it does not account for the various factors and considerations involved ^{[5] [3] [1] [2]}. Additionally, the statement may be lacking context, as it does not provide information on the historical roots of sanctuary, the role of organizations, or the perspectives of immigration authorities or local communities ^{[1] [7] [8]}. The statement may also be biased towards the perspective of churches and immigrants, without considering the viewpoints of other stakeholders ^{[5] [3] [1] [2]}. It is also possible that the statement is incomplete, as it does not mention the potential consequences of providing sanctuary, such as legal risks and community backlash ^{[5] [4]}. The Biden administration's settlement with four immigrants who sought sanctuary in churches, allowing them to stay in the U.S. for three years, may also be seen as a positive development for immigrants and churches providing sanctuary ^[8].