Natalie's Narrative

Observations from detention court

For a class requirement, I recently observed detention court in Chicago.  I wanted to share my thoughts on this often unknown aspect of our immigration system.

The courtroom's location itself seemed telling.  Detention court is in the basement of the federal building, and no one is allowed to enter unaccompanied.  After I waited for a security guard to escort me, I was greeted with a bare hallway that leads to two nondescript, tiny courtrooms.  Though deportations are initially determined at the administrative level, which is lower on the hierarchy than federal district courts, no one would ever imagine this area holds a court that makes life-changing decisions.

Based on the Obama administration's recent mandate, some immigrants without criminal backgrounds are generally not subject to deportation, so it appeared most detainees--all men--were present because of criminal offenses.  However, Matt Soerens has pointed out a study by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") that reveals only 5.6% of detainees each year, as of October 2009, have been convicted of a violent crime. 

Immigration statuses were mixed - some had green cards, while others had crossed the border without papers.  This means the immigrants had committed a crime independently of immigration laws.  Through this crime, Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") determined the immigrants were now subject to deportation.

Out of the dozen cases I observed, only two immigrants were represented by counsel.  Both of them were white European immigrants, while the remaining detainees were from Guatemala, Mexico, and Cuba.  Only one detainee--one of the Europeans--had what appeared to be a family member in the courtroom.  

All of the immigrants were in DHS custody.  They were handcuffed and wore orange jumpsuits.  The detainees were being held at two different locations, one of which was a county jail that received a $6,500,000 grant from DHS to build a federal detention facility.    

I noticed that, during the judge's questioning, several detainees were not from Illinois.  A few were from Kentucky, while one was from Florida.  Human Rights Watch noted in a recent study:

Detainees can be held for anywhere from a few weeks to a few years while their cases proceed. With close to 400,000 immigrants in detention each year, space in detention centers, especially near cities where immigrants live, has not kept pace. In addition, ICE has built a detention system, relying on subcontracts with state jails and prisons, which cannot operate without shuffling detainees among hundreds of facilities located throughout the United States.

As a result, most detainees will be loaded at some point during their detention onto a government-contracted car, bus, or airplane and transferred from one detention center to another: 52 percent of detainees experienced at least one such transfer in 2009. And numbers are growing: between 2004 and 2009, the number of transfers tripled. In total, some 2 million detainee transfers occurred between 1998 and 2010.

An astonishing number of detainees in the study, 3,400, were transferred more than ten times.  I assume the Kentucky and Florida detainees were in Illinois because of these types of transfers, which I imagine causes a hardship for their family and legal counsel, if any.

I also noticed a couple of detainees asked to be released with ankle bracelets, as they had families here.  In fact, one detainee had been in the U.S. for twenty years.  The judge advised she could not make the decision to allow ankle bracelets; rather, it is up to DHS.  Soerens, in discussing the costly effects of keeping immigrants in custody, pointed out that ankle bracelets can cost taxpayers as little as $10 per day, while detention runs $122 on average.

The judge appeared to be compassionate.  She asked the detainees questions that would indicate whether they had a chance to avoid deportation.  She also agreed to lower some immigrants' bail, taking into consideration their less-severe crimes and their families' financial status. However, one sympathetic judge is simply swimming upstream in a broken, overwhelmed, and outdated system.

As for my personal reaction, I admittendly had mixed feelings when I learned of the serious nature of one detainee's crimes.  It was hard for me to feel compassionate toward the fact he lacked legal counsel and would soon be deported.  However, for the most part, I was extremely saddened by what I observed.  I felt physically sick to my stomach, and couldn't stop thinking about the detainees' plight for the next several days afterward.

In the federal immigration context, immigrants are not afforded all of the precious, rights-preserving guarantees of our Constitution, such as the right to counsel.  The main reason is that immigration violations are considered civil matters, rather than criminal, so detainees do not receive  all of the usual criminal protections. 

Even if all the detainees had committed disturbing crimes, it would still bother me that a segment of our population does not have the same rights as U.S. citizens, despite having families here and having made vital economic contributions.  It does not sit well with me that people who have deep roots in our country are caught up in a system that lacks sufficient legal counsel, does not afford full Constitutional protections, and is increasingly driven by entities that receive profitable government contracts.

It seems hardly anyone wants to pay attention to a couple of courtrooms relegated to the basement, unwelcoming to visitors by design.  As a Christian who cares about vulnerable populations, I have to count immigrants in deportation proceedings as one of the most vulnerable - yes, even those who have committed crimes.

Any thoughts?  Should immigration violations be considered criminal rather than civil proceedings?  Is it misguided to have compassion for immigrants who have committed crimes?

What does the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention have to do with immigration?

Find out at my guest post over at Undocumented.tv: 

The largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, boasts 16 million members today.  However, it was formed before the Civil War due to a split with northern Baptists over slavery.  Although they issued an apology in 1995 and have since resolved to promote racial and ethnic diversity within their leadership ranks, Southern Baptists found themselves on the wrong side of history for their past support of slavery.

Be sure to check out Undocumented.tv's excellent resources, as well.  The site is helpful if you've ever wondered how to respond to questions such as "Why don't undocumented immigrants just come here legally?" or "Aren't they hurting the economy?"

Guest post on UnDocumented.tv

What does the usually conservative push for "family values" have to do with immigration?

Would a more compassionate immigration policy support families and family values?

How is the current immigration debate relevant to marriage, children, abortion, and morality?

Check out my guest post over at UnDocumented.tv to find out why!

Why don't Christians, who have received radical grace, extend it to undocumented immigrants?

photo © 2010 Karl-Ludwig Poggemann | more info (via: Wylio)

 

At the Southern Baptist Convention's recent meeting in Phoenix, the members passed a resolution that supports a path for citizenship for undocumented immigrants:

RESOLVED, That we ask our governing authorities to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country.

A Christianity Today article highlighted the tensions within evangelicalism when it comes to this issue.  Wiley Drake, one of the opponents to the "amnesty" portion of the resolution, said, “This is amnesty any way you phrase it. Restitution? They don't need restitution. They need to go to work. We win people to Jesus. We get them jobs and we take them back to their country."

The CT article noted a recent Pew Survey: 

Both the amendment and the final SBC resolution reflect a conundrum facing evangelical churches. Along with other evangelical churches, the SBC has supported immigration reform even though many in their pews hold negative views of immigrants.

A February poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that white evangelicals are more likely to see immigrants as a burden than a strength. Pew found that evangelicals are twice as likely to see immigrants today as “a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care” than they are to say immigrants “strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents.” These views were similar—but still more negative—than other religious groups.

I am thankful that leaders from a group like the SBC have decided to speak up about this issue, in the face of apparent opposition from their own congregations.  This signals an exciting turn in the public discourse and opinion about justice for the undocumented population, as well as repairing the broken system.

Via Todd, I came across an article by Andrew Wencl, a member of the SBC who has ministered to undocumented immigrants.  I don't agree with everything in Wencl's article.  I don't find undocumented people to be the "sinners" that Wencl paints them to be, and I think that an emphasis on justice shouldn't be driven solely by the need to evangelize this population.  However, I appreciate a contradiction that he points out in this debate, which applies to all Christians, not just the SBC:

Some complained that the SBC resolution was advocating for amnesty. But a path to legal status (which does not mean citizenship) does not constitute amnesty, especially when you include “restitutionary measures,” which could take any number of forms. Compassion does not constitute amnesty. Not applying the stiffest penalty allowed by law does not constitute amnesty. I think many people are just miffed that illegal immigrants could “get off light,” as though they have never experienced grace themselves.  (emphasis added)

That last sentence hit the nail on the head.  Christians place a lot of emphasis on Romans 5:6-8, that though filthy, unrighteous sinners, Christ still died for us.  And haven't we as Christians been repeatedly told that we don't deserve the grace that has been extended to us, in our dark, rotting sin?  Isn't this grace supposed to be radical and upside-down?  

It's a shame, then, that American Christians can't muster up that same grace for such a marginalized and exploited community in our midst.  We, who have experienced a radical forgiveness and who preach this forgiveness on a daily basis, have a hard time with "amnesty."  Some may find a distinction between these types of grace: one has cosmic, theological significance, and the other is a nations' rightful set of laws.  However, I find that those who make that distinction put their American citizenship before their kingdom citizenship.  When your country's laws offend the grace that is at the very heart of the gospel, shouldn't you rethink them, rather than defend them?

Although a sad contradiction, the fact that the SBC has recognized the injustice of the situation is promising.

Do undocumented immigrants take jobs from Americans?

One of the talking points of those opposed to a path for legalization of the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is that these immigrants take jobs from American citizens.  The undocumented population is often a convenient scapegoat, and many claim that their presence here is contributing to unemployment.  

Anecdotally, I know this claim is incorrect.  Off the top of my head, I can think of three people I know who are small business owners while also having undocumented status.  And guess what - they employ others!  On the flip side, I can think of more than three American citizens who are able-bodied, yet who do not have the motivation to work, much less start their own business.  

I have found that the undocumented population, with their entrepreneurial spirit, actually revitalize our communities, many of which would otherwise lose population and see an increasing number of businesses shuttered.

Last year, the United Farmworkers' Union ran a clever campaign called "Take Our Jobs."  Fans of The Colbert Report may recall Stephen Colbert featuring this initiative on his show.  Stating that they are ready to help the unemployed and welcome citizens and legal residents who wish to replace them in the field, the UFW explained:

There are two issues facing our nation--high unemployment and undocumented people in the workforce--that many Americans believe are related.

Missing from the debate on both issues is an honest recognition that the food we all eat - at home, in restaurants and workplace cafeterias (including those in the Capitol) - comes to us from the labor of undocumented farm workers.

Agriculture in the United States is dependent on an immigrant workforce. Three-quarters of all crop workers working in American agriculture were born outside the United States. According to government statistics, since the late 1990s, at least 50% of the crop workers have not been authorized to work legally in the United States.

A UFW organizer later reported, “Americans don’t want to work in the fields because conditions are horrid,” and he indicated that a mere three applicants out of the 9,000 who initially inquired actually ended up working in the fields.

The undocumented population is not only saving our agricultural economy, but many are also business owners with hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits each year and dozens of employees.  A CNN Money article from 2005 features "Jose," a Honduran man who now owns a garment business that paid six figures in taxes in 2004:

One of 11 children in a family so poor that he did not own shoes until he was 12, José couldn't find work in Honduras, so at 18, he illegally worked his way west and north into El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico. He took jobs at banana, mango, and sugar-cane plantations. One night, a year after he left Honduras, he sneaked into California near San Diego and traveled north by foot and bus. He knew no one in the U.S. and spoke no English. Sleeping on the streets of East Los Angeles, he waited each day with other immigrants at busy intersections to get construction and painting jobs, for which he was paid in cash. He sent much of his earnings to Honduras to buy his parents a house and to help his older brother join him in the U.S. "The jobs that paid $400 here would have paid $50 in Honduras," José recalls.

Jose eventually established his own garmentmaking company here, even while building 8 homes, an apartment building, and a store for his family back in Honduras (holy cow!):

To avoid any missteps that might derail their dream of becoming naturalized citizens, José and Maria [Jose's wife] have paid state and federal taxes each quarter. They use a federal-tax ID number that the government assigned the business, which they have incorporated in their names. They have obtained all necessary licenses. They contribute payroll taxes for their employees—even the third of them who are are illegal and use fake Social Security numbers bought on the street. The undocumented employees probably will never be able to reap government retirement benefits that they would accumulate if they were citizens. However, accepting the workers' phony Social Security numbers allows the factory to win jobs from large companies that require suppliers to show that all of their employees have this government identification.

With their company on track for about $1.2 million in sales for 2005, Maria and José are charging ahead and trying to ignore the legal cloud that hangs over them. They are considering the purchase of the building that houses the factory, which would allow them to generate rental income from other tenants. Though he is concerned that overseas competitors could hinder his company's growth, José says he is committed to staying in the U.S. He is optimistic that his company will qualify as having $1 million in profits over the next three or four years, which will allow him to reapply for a green card.

A study was recently released that indicated that white people see racism as a zero-sum game.  The results showed that whites felt that opportunities for black people have increased and that racism has decreased.  But at the same time, whites reported they felt these advances were at their own expense, and that discrimination against white people has increased, i.e. "reverse racism." 

photo © 2005 amanda kelso | more info (via: Wylio)

The results of this study were intriguing to me because I see similarities with many Americans' views on immigration: resources are limited, so immigrants who come here out of economic desperation to work are stealing jobs from deserving Americans.  Any upward mobility and a shot at the American dream is seen as a taking a piece of the limited pie from "real" Americans.  

I find this view to be misguided, ignorant, and often a result of racial and ethnic bias.  We should be welcoming those like Jose who want to keep their profitable factories here, rather than maximize and exploit what they can overseas.  But instead, we're scapegoating some of the most entrepreneurial and hardworking people in the world, all to defend a "rule of law" that is actually a woefully outdated, arbitrary, and broken system.  Economic opportunity is not a zero-sum game, so we should be thankful that resourceful, job-creating people want to come and invest in our country.

Photo credit

Immigration: Bringing out the disconnect in American Christianity

Fred Clark at Slacktivist linked last week to an Ethics Daily post about the immigration bill recently passed in Alabama.  The governor, who signed the bill into law, is a member of the First Baptist Church of Tuscaloosa.  One of the bill's sponsors is a member of another First Baptist Church, in Gardendale, AL. 

Recently, Roger Olson commented on a similar law in Oklahoma: "I would even go so far as to question the authenticity of the Christian faith of those who wrote the law."  To Olson, the fruit that was produced by Christians who support this law does not match up with the Bible's commands to welcome the stranger.  The Oklahoma law makes it a felony to transport or shelter undocumented immigrants, but allows emergency room medical personnel to provide life-saving medical aid.  The Alabama law goes even further, requiring schools to verify the immigration status of its students.

Clark is similar to Olson in his questioning of the authenticity of these lawmakers' Christian faith (and what about the Christians who sat on the sidelines in both Oklahoma and Alabama--and Arizona too?).  I can't go that far, as I don't feel it's my place to question whether anyone is a true Christian.  I can only examine myself.  As Streak said, I'm loathe to speak for God.  However, I do think it's a very valid and proper question to ask why those who claim to follow Christ would promote hate and simply fail to act like they follow him at all?

How is it that the largest denomination in the U.S., with such a strong presence in both Oklahoma and Alabama, and who places so much importance on "literally" believing the words of Scripture and reading those words every day, can allow these laws to pass?  I simply do not understand the disconnect here.  Which Bible are they reading?  

@na1alieNatalie Burris

When I love my neighbor as myself, am I supposed to ask for her immigration papers first?

I suppose with the SBC, and with many other Christians, it is completely acceptable to deny medical care, schooling, dignity, and economic opportunity to the most marginalized people in our country.  As long as these Christians intellectually assent to certain propositions of the faith they have constructed, any fruit they produce is irrelevant.  I will be the first to admit that my actions are woefully far from lining up with Jesus' teachings.  I struggle with loving God and loving others.  But a basic thing, such as offering aid to others, should be an action that we can all agree on as Christians.

It saddens me that my fellow Christians are allowing their American citizenship to overpower their status as a Christ-follower (I just gave my answer to my "why" question above).  Again, I'm certainly not one to judge, but it does confuse me to think that an active member of a church has no problem with explicitly and purposefully pushing more people into the shadows of our society.  This disconnect not only saddens and confuses me, but it just pushes me further away from identifying myself as a Christian.  

Photo credit

Desperation

(Government of Chiapas)

Last week, the stomach-turning news broke that 513 migrants, crammed inside two tractor trailers, were intercepted in Mexico, en route to the U.S.: 

Some of the immigrants were suffering from dehydration after traveling for hours clinging to cargo ropes strung inside the containers to keep them upright as the trucks bounced along from the Guatemalan border, and allow more migrants to be more crammed in on the floor.

The trucks had air holes punched in the tops of the containers, but migrants interviewed at the state prosecutors' office said they lacked air and water. The trucks were bound for the central city of Puebla, where the migrants said they had been told they would be loaded aboard a second set of vehicles for the trip to the U.S. border.

The majority of the migrants were from Guatemala.  One man remarked that staying in his hometown in Guatemala was not an option: "a lot of us are Indians, and we can't stay in our homes. There is no work, and there's nothing to eat."

There were also people from Japan, China, and Nepal crammed into the trailers, having trafficked themselves with outrageous sums of borrowed money, probably passing through several different countries.  (For an informative but heartwrenching description of what these migrants undergo, I recommend Underground America: Narratives of Undocumented Lives.)

Reading about these horrors in attempts to arrive here reinforces the fact that no one goes through such harrowing experiences simply because they want to flout the law and avoid waiting in the (nonexistent) legal immigration line.

That 513 people (32 women and 4 children) are willing to scrape together $7,000 a piece and cram themselves into a trailer speaks volumes.  No one chooses this.  Rather, forced by economic desperation and hunger, people are pushed from their homes.  The pull is just as strong as the push: an immigrant can make six times more working here in the U.S. 

Each time a tragic report like this comes out, such desperation reminds me that our broken immigration system is exacerbating a humanitarian crisis.  And once undocumented immigrants arrive here, they are even more susceptible to exploitation, by virtue of being forced to live in the shadows.  

My more cynical side tends to view President Obama's recent immigration reform push as simply another move in the election chess game.  Whatever the motivation behind this renewed discussion, I hope we can be careful not to view immigration overhaul as solely an economic matter.  The millions of undocumented people here are not simply saviors of bankrupt Social Security or a source of young, cheap labor.  They are human beings who deserve dignity, and who have been through hell and back.

Also, many anti-immigrant groups like to paint the undocumented population as one-dimensional: simply lawbreakers.  But we can't forget that folks who have been forced to go this route often end up victims themselves once they get here.  What does a person whose "status" here is unauthorized do in the face of labor violations?  Nothing.  And many employers take advantage of this.  The same goes for many landlords and abusive partners.

So I try to keep this in mind during the immigration debate, along with the fact that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus themselves had to flee to Egypt shortly after Jesus' birth.  Following him, I hope I can take the side of these economic refugees, forced into horrifying situations, rather than take the side of fence-builders and exploiters.

Re-creating a reality that suits us

 

An interesting part of the events surrounding the killing of Bin Laden is the fact that Sohaib Athar, an Abbottabad, Pakistan resident, tweeted the attack as it happened.  If you read through his timeline, it's clear that Athar, despite being hounded by the media and twitterers since the news broke, is a level-headed and humorous guy.

 

After the attack on Bin Laden's compound, but before any announcement of what actually happened, Athar jokingly--I assume--comments about recreating a reality that suits us.  Later, Athar tweets the above, about the "official story."

I find it so intriguing that one of the only witnesses of such a newsworthy, symbolic event has this perspective -- and even his twitter handle speaks to this phenomenon!  Governments, terrorist networks, religions, and even individuals all carefully attempt to craft official stories and create realities that suit us.

The most convenient and comforting reality created and re-created by my government and a lot of its citizens is that we are the harbingers of freedom, democracy, and capitalism.  Things are much more black and white when "the bad guy" is killed, and any moral shortcomings are of course not on the USA's part.  

For example, reports came out that Bin Laden used his wife as a shield, which I'm sure further fueled many Americans' hatred of him.  Now that a clearer picture is surfacing, we know (or do we really...) that Bin Laden and others with him were unarmed and that his wife ran toward the U.S. attackers before she was shot.  The image in most of our minds, a woman being used as a shield while Bin Laden cowers behind her, quickly dissolves.  Here's a take from Slate, and another one from Salon (h/t Art) on the myths and revised narratives of Bin Laden.

photo © 2009 dennis crowley | more info (via: Wylio)

There are more realities than just international relations-based ones - we have domestic stories, too. For some, the wealthy need the freedom from taxation, so they can stimulate the economy and create jobs. For others, it's not fair for the wealthy to have an equal or lesser tax burden.  "Cutting taxes" is a huge plus for conservatives, but often it's code for placing the burden of budget cuts on teachers, factory workers, and low-income families who are forced to rely on government aid.  

It happens with Christians, too.  The New York Times has a feature on David Barton, who promotes a reality that "the United States was founded as a Christian nation and is on the road to ruin, thanks to secularists and the Supreme Court."  

Whatever side you may be on --or somewhere in between -- usually someone has created a tidy story that justifies which positions to take. Whether it's about a specific historical event, the ongoing budget debates, or the separation of church and state, we are fed a story from the media, government, and even self-styled "historians" like Barton.  So I make an effort to listen and read with care, and I try to avoid taking any "official" narrative at face value.  How do I do this?

• The internet:

The internet makes poking holes in any created reality much easier -- who knows who will be unknowingly live-tweeting the next historical event?  It becomes trickier for a government to craft their version of events when someone else has already described part of what happened.  So I rely on the internet, of course.  The internet has its own set of problems though, as we saw with the recent misquoting of both Mark Twain and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Even still, the democratization and de-centralization of information makes the web a great tool.

• Relationships:

Another important aspect in getting down to the nitty-gritty is actually engaging in relationships and listening to people's stories.  This is especially true for immigration. Each person's anecdotal evidence can obviously end up supporting any side, but I guarantee if you get to know immigrants as fellow human beings, the reality created by some quickly falls apart.  Here's a good example: Undercover Gringo: The microeconomics of an illegal immigrant in Oklahoma.

• Global perspective:

Gaining a global perspective has been an immense help for me in countering the often-incorrect narratives created by governments and Christians.  And it encompasses the first two tools, the internet and personal relationships.  Realizing my place in the world as a wealthy American Christian has affected my views on foreign policy, and I've realized my government is not the pure, moral, democracy-bringing actor it portrays itself to be.

Recognizing that there are many "official stories" in play doesn't mean that I am completely relativistic when it comes to truth.  I just feel that it's important to maintain a healthy skepticism about what the media, governments, and even some Christians tell us.  I wonder what stories I'm still taking at face value, despite my efforts to be aware?

Counteracting the hate

Oklahoma Senate OKs bill targeting illegal immigrants

I accidentally came across some of the most hateful, vitriolic, and ignorant comments about immigrants while reading the above article.  The comments are appalling.  Unfortunately, the anti-immigrant crowd yells the loudest and perpetuates fear in our communities and our legislatures.  Pretty ironic considering our nation was founded by a group of people who immigrated here "without papers" and simply took the land from those who were here first.

Nuance is often lost on talk shows, in comment threads, and at the dinner table, but this discussion involves complexities ranging from statistics to examining our deep-seated beliefs.  To counteract the ignorance, hate, and fear, I wish I could take the time to point to all of the resources that show that undocumented immigrants pay taxes yet do not qualify for the majority of government aid.  I wish I had time to explain that there is no line to get into for many who want to immigrate here through the proper channels.  

As we have seen from the "birther" movement, actual facts do not convince everyone.  Instead, I wanted to share a post by Rinku Sen from Colorlines:  May Day Rallies Reveal America's True Self--Its Promise and Its Fear.  It's much easier to rail against statistics and groups of people, but perhaps if more individuals share their stories, we can counteract the vitriol and ignorance of those who are anti-immigrant.  

Feel free to click here for my past posts on immigration.

Quitting Christianity, murdering faith

photo © 2009 Jeffrey Smith | more info (via: Wylio)

 

Author Anne Rice recently announced that, in the name of Christ, she was quitting Christianity:

"...I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life."

On her Facebook page, she links to an article on the Huffington Post, which is a thoughtful analysis of why Rice has moved in this direction.  Michael Rowe writes:

You murder faith by exposing it to bullets inscribed with Bible verses that kill Afghan and Iraqi children. You murder it by separating an elderly lesbian couple in a hospital because their union is considered "unnatural." You murder it by linking it to greed, to the "God wants you to be rich" movement which marinates in loathing for the poor and needy, in defiance of Christ's commission to care for them, then call it "good for America." You murder it by exposing it to any number of atrocities wrapped up in an inviolate nationalism that claims divine authority as its basis, with no room for dissent, and no mercy for dissenters. You murder it with self-righteous, violent militarism, with intolerance, with lack of compassion, with lack of humility and, most importantly, with lack of humanity.

Pretty soon there will be so many people who are this disappointed with institutional Christianity that we will outnumber those who consider themselves still in the fold, if not already.  I say "we" because I haven't found a church community yet and am still feeling pretty disillusioned with Christianity-with-a- capital-C.  I was reminded of this again when I went to a Spanish-language evangelical church service last weekend with a friend from college.  We heard an amazing prayer about immigration reform in the U.S.  Gave me goosebumps.  However at the same church service, there was a reference to the rise of Islam as an indicator that the antichrist is near.  Good grief, no wonder I'm on my third year of feeling like an outsider to this faith...