Today, the term “ICE” saturates the news. Hundreds of thousands, if not more, people demonstrate across America with signs demanding that ICE stand down, leave their state, or be disbanded. We can’t abolish ICE any more than local police because these agencies provide vital services. However, over time, they grow, and we wind up with what is known as “mission creep.” If these armed agencies are not adequately supervised or if they are tasked by our leaders to provide services for which they are not chartered, innocent people can get hurt or killed, and this is precisely what is happening in the U.S. today. In this post, I want to focus on a small piece of the puzzle: that of sanctuary and sanctuary cities.
The notion of sanctuary is as old as the Bible. The Mosaic Law presents a somewhat complicated criterion for sanctuary. There were six cities in ancient Israel where a person who shed blood could receive sanctuary for a prescribed, but often indefinite, period of time (years, perhaps even decades, determined by the life of the High Priest at the time). A person could also receive sanctuary by grabbing the horns of the altar in the temple (1 Kings 1:50-53). This was once true in European cathedrals such as Notre Dame, but today the state insists on the right to demand that a church surrender a fugitive, which the church reluctantly does. In the Bible, sanctuary did not apply to people who knowingly and willingly committed murder. Simply stated:
The Mosaic Law stated that anyone who committed a murder was to be put to death (Exodus 21:14). But for unintentional deaths, God set aside these cities to which the killer could flee for refuge (Exodus 21:13). He would be safe from the avenger—the family member charged with avenging the victim’s death (Numbers 35:19)—until the case could go to trial. The congregation would judge to find if the attacker acted unintentionally. If he did, he would return to the city of refuge and live there safely until the death of the high priest who was in office at the time of the trial, at which point he could return to his property. If the attacker left the city of refuge before the death of the high priest, however, the avenger would have the right to kill him (Numbers 35:24-28).
The establishment of those privileged sanctuaries among the cities of the Levites is probably traceable to the idea that the Levites would be the most suitable and impartial judges, that their presence and counsels might calm or restrain the stormy passions of the blood avenger. By their consecration as priests, the Levites were mediators between the Israelites and God. As such, they would have been gifted to calmly mediate between the attacker and the victim’s family, ensuring that no further bloodshed would occur.
After consulting rabbinic writings, I concluded that the purpose of the sanctuary, as God provided it, was to assure an orderly, dispassionate approach to the trial and punishment of a crime once tempers had cooled down. This was for the sake of justice. Today in America, we call this procedural due process. We do not want a suspect in a crime, or an unfortunate but innocent individual in the wrong place at the wrong time, to be cornered by a group of ginned-up “good old boys” who happen to have a noose with them.
In Deuteronomy 23:15-16, Scripture says:
Sanctuary in Medieval Times
In the Middle Ages, someone hunted by the authorities could claim sanctuary in a cathedral, monastery, abbey, or church if they could get there without being arrested. True criminals would eventually tire of their surroundings and try to slip back out onto the streets where the authorities were often lying in wait to arrest them. Heretics, sorcerers, traitors, convicted offenders, and people seeking sanctuary for an additional offense were not provided this relief. Those seeking sanctuary were required to confess their misdeeds, surrender any weapons they might have, and participate in church activities, including Mass. Most ecclesiastical sanctuaries allowed a fugitive to stay no more than forty days, though some offered the opportunity for the accused to join the order and stay permanently. Yet the State battled with the Church over sanctuary then, just as they do now. Surrendering oneself was another option after forty days, giving the accused time to plan their defense in court.
Because of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State in the U.S., there has never been a recognized arrangement for sanctuary, and runaway slaves, Vietnam War deserters, and illegal aliens cannot be legally sheltered in a church, synagogue, or other house of worship.
<BR>
As I have written elsewhere, the U.S. cannot be home for everyone in the world. However, there are some things that need to be fixed, and it is up to Congress—and not any one man—to determine who can stay and who must go. Perhaps someone with a critical skill should be offered a path to citizenship? Or someone who serves in our military? Or someone born in this country, as the Fourteenth Amendment currently provides? I don’t have the expertise or insight to suggest specific policy initiatives, but before anyone is removed from our soil, they should be granted due process, including a hearing before a magistrate, representation during proceedings and so on. This flies in direct contadiction to how things have been done this past year where undocumented immigrants were being arrested without warrant when they report for appointed court visits. Or they are being arrested, sometimes by ICE or other agents who break open the door to their home, shipping them to another state almost immediately after arrest, or rushing to send them to unfamiliar countries on distant continents to avoid judicial review because of an expectation that a judge will issue an injunction or a temporary restraining order.
Living in a sanctuary city
I live in a sanctuary city. My city is not large like Chicago, Los Angeles or Dallas. In fact, it has less than 40,000 citizens. Nor is it likely as ethnically diverse. So, a comparison of a small town that is 85.5% white, 6% Hispanic 4% Asian and 2.2% black to a city such as Kansas City, Philadelphia or Tucson might not be ideal; in fact, it might be more of a contrast. The fact that my town is in upstate New York might lead some to believe that we are ultra-liberal, but this dismisses the presence of Libertarian conservatives among us who often, depending on the issues, eschew the same dictatorial impositions of nascent fascism in this country as those on the political left do.
As discussed above, the notion of sanctuary and sanctuary cities has Biblical origins, representing a requirement that God gave to Moses. However, the people of my town are not all people of faith, as far as I can tell. Nevertheless, they understand why the concept of sanctuary is important more than many of my Christian brethren do.
We don’t have MS-13 gang members raping women and girls in my town, as they are said to do in other American cities. Still, there is one sexual assault reported every other month or so. Salvadorans in the U.S. illegally who live in my town are not murdering the residents in their sleep. Nor are the Haitians here, as far as I can tell, eating our pets, though neighbors seem to always be losing track of their cats. As far as I know, there are no mosques in town, but I may be wrong. I do believe that most of the people would welcome peaceful Muslims of good intentions to join our community. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion; who are we to make people of other faiths feel less welcome or to deny them this right?
And most of us are all tolerant of people, particularly as fas as ascriptive characteristics are concerned. We would not remain silent if someone among us were to compare a black-American to a monkey as the current President apparently enjoys doing. We tolerate the free speech right of someone to speak their mind, but civility and decency are important concepts that need to be defended as well as speech.
Not everyone in my town shares this tolerance. On Memorial Day in 2024, someone hoisted a “Trump for President” flag on the flagpole of the main post office in town, which is reserved for the U.S. flag. I respect the MAGA yard signs that are sparsely scattered across town, often common to particular neighborhoods, but I thought that the flag at the post office was over the top because the post office is a federal building. I would not welcome the Gadsden flag, the Stars and Bars, the LGBTQ+ flag, or the Christian flag on a government building either.
I cannot speak for all sanctuary cities in America because this is the only one in which I’ve lived; however, I support grassroots democracy and the right of the people to choose for their leaders for themselves. While living here, I’ve discovered that there is a clear sense of community among the residents that I have come to enjoy. I believe this bond is one of the strengths we have historically had in America, and it pains me to see our society descend into tribal divisions and madness led by someone who only claims to represent just less than half of all Americans.
