![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In the context of increasing numbers of vulnerable migrants in Europe, many churches and other faith-based organizations have provided sanctuary to those at risk of deportation. This paper sheds light on the rationalities and practices of actors such as these, and in what ways their beliefs may be different from liberal norms. Investigating both liberal and faith-based understandings of space, time, and freedom I look at the ways that multiple webs of belief intersect to form new constellations of power in humanitarian governance.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Katharyne Mitchell is Dean of the Division of Social Sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, with research interests in transnationalism, migration, and urban governance. Her current work, on migration and the spaces of sanctuary in Europe, is supported by a Guggenheim Fellowship.
Notes
1 In order to avoid reifying the problematic distinctions between so-called voluntary migrants and political refugees, in this paper I refer to people who are moving internationally under stressful conditions with the term forced migrant.
2 There are also a number of important special issues that have addressed faith and humanitarianism in the context of forced migration. See the Special Issue of the Forced Migration Review 48, November, 2014; and the Journal of Refugee Studies 24, 3, 2011, with a helpful introduction by Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (Citation2011); see also an earlier issue of the Journal of Refugee Studies, 2002, with an introduction by Goździak and Shandy (Citation2002).
3 EU rules under the so-called Dublin regulations stipulate that asylum seekers must register for asylum in the first member state where they arrive, and that member state is responsible for processing the claimant’s application. This was initially decreed as an effort to prevent ‘asylum-shopping’, but in practice it has led to an inequitable distribution of asylum claimants in southern EU member states such as Greece, Hungary, and Italy, huge backloads in asylum processing in those countries, and human rights concerns when forced migrants who have made it to northern member states are deported back to countries such as Hungary, where they are not wanted and the reception is bad and conditions often inhumane. Many of those taken into church protection are fleeing from deportation back to these EU member states or to countries now deemed by the EU to be ‘safe spaces’, such as Afghanistan or Iraq, where church members disagree with this geopolitical designation.
4 The specific practices of church asylum vary in different European countries. Most of the examples in this paper are drawn from Germany. For more information about sanctuary practices see the up-to-date website of the German Ecumenical Committee on Church Asylum (GECCA), also known as (BAG) Asyl in der Kirche: http://www.kirchenasyl.de/herzlich-willkommen/welcome/.
5 See, ‘Welcome! Current church asylum nationwide’. Available at: http://www.kirchenasyl.de/.
6 Note, for example, the high profile meeting of UN leaders, FBOs and religious leaders following the major United Nations Summit on Refugees and Migrants and the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees in New York on September 23, 2016. An article about this meeting, entitled ‘Faith-based organizations can help solve problems of forced migration, say experts at UN’, was published on the World Council of Churches website on October 6, 2016. It can be found at: https://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/faith-based-organizations-can-help-solve-problems-of-forced-migration-say-experts-at-un. See also, documents prepared by UNHCR (Citation2013, Citation2014); and the International Organization for Migration, IOM (Citation2006).
7 See, The High Commissioner’s Dialogue on Protection Challenges 2012, December 12–13, 2012. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/high-commissioners-dialogue-on-protection-challenges-2012.html.
8 See, UNHCR, ‘Welcoming the Stranger: Affirmations for Faith Leaders’. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/hcdialogue%20/51b6de419/welcoming-stranger-affirmations-faith-leaders.html.
9 See, Islamic Relief Worldwide, ‘Role of Faith in Refugee Protection’, November 11, 2015. Available at: http://www.islamic-relief.org/role-of-faith-in-refugee-protection/.
10 See, PaRD: International Partnership on Religion and Sustainable Development, ‘Religious Engagement in Humanitarian Crises’, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Bonn, August, 2016. Available at: http://www.partner-religion-development.org/.
11 One informant at UNHCR believed that the demand for more transparent links was the result of growing Islamophobia in Europe following the bombings in Madrid and London.
12 See, The Lutheran World Federation, ‘The Church in the Public Space’. Available at: https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/council_2016_-_public_statement_church_in_public_space.pdf.
13 Cases of church asylum or sanctuary in Europe have been publicly noted in Germany, Norway, Finland, Iceland, France, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, and the UK (see Lippert & Rehaag, Citation2013). In addition to GECCA, the other key faith-based network involved in sanctuary practices is the Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME). Smaller networks include Katholische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Migration (KAM), Evangelische Kirche, and Heilig Kreuz-Passion, among others.
14 For an historical examination of the Christian roots of the concept of human dignity, see Moyn (Citation2015).
15 The Charta is a Resolution of the Annual Meeting of the German Ecumenical Committee on Church Asylum, Berlin, October 10, 2010. New Sanctuary Movement in Europe: Healing and Sanctifying Movement in the Churches, edited by GECCA, Berlin, February 2011, p. 54. It is adapted from the Charta of Groningen, which was issued from a 1987 conference held in Groningen, Netherlands. It is available at: http://www.kirchenasyl.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Charta-english1.pdf.
16 Name withheld to grant anonymity. In a related incident in Queensland, Australia around the same time, the Anglican Dean, Peter Catt, declared his cathedral a sanctuary. He said in opposition to a High Court ruling backing up the legality of offshore processing, ‘This fundamentally goes against our faith, so our church community is compelled to act, despite the possibility of individual penalty against us’. If the police sought to forcibly remove the refugees: ‘I would certainly ask them to leave their weapons outside as a mark of respect … but it would require someone to create a bit of a scene in a sacred space’. Quoted in Jared Owens and Mark Schliebs, ‘Anglican Church’s asylum “sanctuary” bid’, The Australian, February 4, 2016. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/anglican-churchs-asylum-sanctuary-bid/news-story/8cbe51438f07a079c7660d1b732fbe31.
17 Quoted in ‘Police force migrant out of German church’, August 24, 2016. Available at: http://www.dw.com/en/police-force-migrant-out-of-german-church/a-19496599.
18 Asyl in der Kirche, ‘Ecumenical Confederation of Labor Denounces Church Asylum in Münster’, August 26, 2016. Available at: http://www.kirchenasyl.de/portfolio/oekumenische-bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft-verurteilt-kirchenasylraeumung-in-muenster/. Notably, the forced migrant was to be deported to Hungary under the Dublin regulations. Despite the removal of the man from the church, however, the administrative court of Münster stopped the planned deportation owing to the inhumane conditions for asylum claimants in Hungary.
19 Quoted in ‘Christian shelter: Refugees of all faiths get sanctuary in German church’, May 26, 2016. Available at: https://www.rt.com/news/344471-germany-refugees-shelter-church/.
20 The churches give sanctuary for up to six months, after which the migrant is allowed to stay in Germany for his or her asylum procedure, or to have previous decisions re-examined. (In Dublin cases, if the migrant is apprehended prior to six months residence in Germany (s)he can be immediately deported to the member state of first entry.)