P
- Status
C
cmforte
Guest
From that article:
"The law also punishes people who “harbour” or “transport” illegal immigrants, which is the concern raised by religious organizations.“We feel the First Amendment rights of the Constitution of the United States do not permit any obstruction of free expression of religion, and that includes acts of charity as well,” said Bishop Robert Baker of Birmingham, who is participating in the lawsuit.
“Attending church services could be considered harbouring,” he told Vatican Radio. “A sheriff or some other law enforcement officer could be outside the church ready to move in on the people…if the legislature itself doesn’t clarify that, it is left up to individual law enforcement officials, or any judge, to make a decision.”Bishop Baker said if the law is allowed to go ahead as written, then “the result will be, probably inevitably, that some religious worker will face prosecution.”
Does that mean if they do re-write the law to clarify that Church activities and minstries are exempted, they will support it? I doubt it. I think these religious leaders are just looking for any excuse to block any effort to combat illegal immigration. As long as they do write that clarification into the law-(****not that I believe any sheriff or law enforcement agent with any sort of common sense and courtesy would stake out a church service just waiting for a moment to pounce on its brown-skinned worshipers-remember that many wrongly believe these laws encourage racial profiling),-then I’m all for it.
-Chris
C
cmforte
Guest
Bishop baker: “…if the legislature itself doesn’t clarify that, it is left up to individual law enforcement officials, or any judge, to make a decision…”
It sounds like Bishop Baker, respectfully-speaking, has little confidence in the intelligence of law enforcement agents and judges in Alabama. I wonder how that has affected the laity of his diocese’s respect for law enforcement and the judicial system there?
-Chris
D
dixieagle
Guest
Frankly, I wish the religious leaders had spoken out more forcefully before this short-sighted law was passed.
Our archbishop wrote an excellent article about his reasons for joining the lawsuit (he also has a law degree) that ran in our Catholic newspaper:
mobilearchdiocese.org/templates/readtjrarticles.cfm?Article=RodiArticle74.htm
“This law attacks our very understanding of what it means to be a Christian.”
Our archbishop wrote an excellent article about his reasons for joining the lawsuit (he also has a law degree) that ran in our Catholic newspaper:
mobilearchdiocese.org/templates/readtjrarticles.cfm?Article=RodiArticle74.htm
“This law attacks our very understanding of what it means to be a Christian.”
C
cmforte
Guest
From that article;
"…The law prohibits almost everything which would assist an undocumented immigrant or encourage an undocumented immigrant to live in Alabama. "-No kidding. That is the whole point. Why would you want to encourage ILLEGAL immigrants to live in your state or community, anyways?
“Throughout our history we have been a nation of immigrants.”-LEGAL immigrants.
"…The words of Moses to the Hebrew people should resonate in our own hearts: “You shall not oppress or afflict the alien among you, for you were once aliens residing in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:20) "-*this in no way explicitly speaks about ILLEGAL aliens among the Israelites. *
“…However, the Church is not in charge of our borders. We do not determine who enters our country. But once immigrants are in our midst, the Church has a moral obligation, intrinsic to the living out of our faith, to be Christ-like to everyone.”
-This I agree with. The Church and private charity groups should be exempt from the law, and I suspect that they actually are.
-Chris
M
MarkBrown
Guest
If one just reads the Law, one would see the religious leaders are making a great leap
in logic.
One MUST know the person is in violation of FEDERAL Law. Alabama’s law defers to Federal Law, repeatly states NO ONE can be stopped just to check immigration status.
To be in violation, you must know the person is illegal. So how will the religious leaders know they are illegal. Unless the religious leaders are assuming all brown skinned people are illegal.
Non-profits are exempt, ie food or soup kitchens for example. Schools, hospitals…there are numerous exemptions. How would any priest know some one at the rail is illegal. The confession is off limits to law enforcement. Priest are not required to notify about crimes they hear in the confessional, right?
The law forbides law enforcement from “laying in wait” based upon race, color, national origin etc. So I seriously doubt the county sheriff will be waiting outside the local Baptist, Church of God, Methodist, TEC or Catholic Church.
Mark
in logic.
One MUST know the person is in violation of FEDERAL Law. Alabama’s law defers to Federal Law, repeatly states NO ONE can be stopped just to check immigration status.
To be in violation, you must know the person is illegal. So how will the religious leaders know they are illegal. Unless the religious leaders are assuming all brown skinned people are illegal.
Non-profits are exempt, ie food or soup kitchens for example. Schools, hospitals…there are numerous exemptions. How would any priest know some one at the rail is illegal. The confession is off limits to law enforcement. Priest are not required to notify about crimes they hear in the confessional, right?
The law forbides law enforcement from “laying in wait” based upon race, color, national origin etc. So I seriously doubt the county sheriff will be waiting outside the local Baptist, Church of God, Methodist, TEC or Catholic Church.
Mark
D
dixieagle
Guest
Frankly, I think that the archbishop knows what he’s talking about, and if, with his legal background, he feels that the Church is at risk in this, he’s likely right.
I also have no problem with making the path to some type of legal status easier for the hard-working migrants who have picked Alabama crops for years. Whether that is through a guest worker program or something else, I support it.
I’ve lived in this state for decades and tire of the sanctimonious legislators who pander to the most xenophobic elements in the population. Ironically, these “conservative” lawmakers are hurting small farmers who rely on Hispanic workers to do the backbreaking work that others won’t. The state agriculture commissioner has already expressed concern about problems harvesting crops.
This is a big country; if folks want to work to better themselves and their families and there are jobs, as in agriculture, we should find a way to let them come…or stay. Those who think that Americans are flocking to take these jobs are sadly mistaken; Georgia was forced to have inmates pick the crops, and they were lousy at it.
C
cmforte
Guest
First off, just because one has a law degree does not mean one is unbiased in interpreting laws. Even attorneys and judges interpret laws and thier affects differently.
Secondly, by saying, :"tire of the sanctimonious legislators who pander to the most xenophobic elements in the population., " are you saying that anyone who is against illegal immigration and wants something actually done about it, like the State stepping in since the Feds have zoned out, as this law implies, xenophobic? And are you equating all conservatives with xenaphobia? These are unfounded and inflammatory charges and I would love to see your evidence supporting it, other than the fact that they are against illegal immigration… We don’t care where an illegal comes from or the color of thier skin, an illegal is an illegal is an illegal. Please post some source that confirms that all the people who support the law are xenaphobes. And do the same for all the Conservatives there too. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
-Chris
C
cmforte
Guest
Thank you for making that clarification for everyone. I hope this is clear now.If one just reads the Law, one would see the religious leaders are making a great leap
in logic.
One MUST know the person is in violation of FEDERAL Law. Alabama’s law defers to Federal Law, repeatly states NO ONE can be stopped just to check immigration status.
To be in violation, you must know the person is illegal. So how will the religious leaders know they are illegal. Unless the religious leaders are assuming all brown skinned people are illegal.
Non-profits are exempt, ie food or soup kitchens for example. Schools, hospitals…there are numerous exemptions. How would any priest know some one at the rail is illegal. The confession is off limits to law enforcement. Priest are not required to notify about crimes they hear in the confessional, right?
The law forbides law enforcement from “laying in wait” based upon race, color, national origin etc. So I seriously doubt the county sheriff will be waiting outside the local Baptist, Church of God, Methodist, TEC or Catholic Church.
Mark
-Chris
C
cmforte
Guest
Can someone post a link to the law itself so we can read it and see if we do change our minds and agree with the Bishops and Archbishop on it? That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
-Chris
C
cmforte
Guest
I just read the text of the law here:latindispatch.com/2011/06/09/text-of-alabama-immigration-law-hb-56/ (only because it was the first site that poped up in my Google search engine) and I can not find anywhere where it specifies Mexican., Hispanic, Latino, brown-skinned, minority, LEGAL immigrant, specifies or implies that the use of racial profiling is lawful, or that a law enforcement officer can just stop anyone anywhere for suspicion of being an illegal (in fact it states the contrary), or where it states that Churches, other religious organizations, and private charity groups can be viewed as violating the law. I hope one can point those words in the law out for me incase I just missed them, and please, lets try to debate the exact wording of the law on a point-by-point basis and ***stop making gross generalizations about it. ***Thank you.
-Chris
-Chris
I
Ignatius
Guest
They are worried about this imagined problem, but they are blind to the actual destruction of the right of conscience for Medical practitioners to refuse to perform immoral procedures. This is already happening with the new regulations being promulgated by HHS.
The best method to deal with illegal immigration is a matter of prudential Judgment. The promotion of abortion, taxpayer funding of artificial contraception and forcing medical practitioners to to cooperate in these intrinsic evils is a non-negotiable position of The Church.
C
cmforte
Guest
dixieagle, lets try this: post a part of the law you have a problem with (I know its the whole law in general, but we don’t have that kind of space in one posting), and tell me exactly why you are against it.
Then I will post a response stating why I am for it. Wouldn’t that work out better than just saying, “anyone who supports this law is a racist xenaphobe”?
-Chris
Then I will post a response stating why I am for it. Wouldn’t that work out better than just saying, “anyone who supports this law is a racist xenaphobe”?
-Chris
D
dixieagle
Guest
What I said, and meant, was that these legislators “pander to the most xenophobic elements in the population.” Sadly, there seem to be plenty of them here…folks whose world is very small, and who want to feel that there is someone on a lower rung of the ladder than they are. They talk about “illegals” taking jobs from Americans, when the jobs they speak of (back-breaking agricultural work) now go unfilled because citizens won’t do them.
The state of Alabama has plenty of its own problems, and little money to address them; this is an ill-advised waste of tax dollars, among other things.
I’m with the archbishop on this, and imagine this law won’t last. (Especially when folks have to wait in long lines to prove citizenship when renewing car tags, rather than doing it online or by mail…one little provision most folks didn’t know about.)
C
cmforte
Guest
I know what you said. You are saying that legislatures are "pandering " to xenophobic elements by trying to fight illegal immigration through laws like this, ergo, if one is one of those people that support it, which means he is also the one being “pandered” to, then that person is a xenophobe. So how was my assessment of your comment wrong?
I don’t believe that is true, not of *all *citizens anyways. And in a time of rampant unemployment and poverty among American citizens, isn’t it about time we pressure them to take those jobs? (If only and hopefully temporarily).
Please explain in detail how this bill would “waste” Alabama tax dollars?
Funny, I can not find that in the bill. Can you quote it and post a link to it?
-Chris
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Only about 3% of illegal immigrants in the States are employed in agricultural work. The other 97% are employed in a variety of industries, some of which would definitely be filled with legal immigrants and others.
I
Ignatius
Guest
I see you making a lot of assertions about this law, ones I believe to be false assertions. Make your case if you can by posting the portions of the law that back up your contentions.
E
Ender
Guest
Here is part of that article:
*- This new Alabama law makes it illegal for a Catholic priest to baptize, hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, an undocumented immigrant. Nor can we encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass. It is illegal to allow them to attend adult scripture study groups, or attend CCD or Sunday school classes. It is illegal for the clergy to counsel them in times of difficulty or in preparation for marriage. It is illegal for them to come to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings or other recovery groups at our churches. *
*- The law prohibits almost every activity of our St. Vincent de Paul chapters or Catholic Social Services. If it involves an undocumented immigrant, it is illegal to give the disabled person a ride to the doctor; give food or clothing or financial assistance in an emergency; allow them to shop at our thrift stores or to learn English; it is illegal to counsel a mother who has a problem pregnancy, or to help her with baby food or diapers, thus making it far more likely that she will choose abortion.
*
The first thing to note is that there is nothing in the law that actually says any of this; it is all his interpretation of the impact the law might have, which seems a bit strained given what the law does say.
Section 7(e): ***Verification *of lawful presence in the United States shall not be required for any of the following:
(1) For primary or secondary school education…
(2) For obtaining health care items and services that are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition …
(4) For public health assistance for immunizations…
*(5) For programs, services, or assistance, such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter specified by federal law or regulation that satisfy all of the following …
*(6) For prenatal care.
There is also this about what is unlawful:
Section 13(a):
(3) Transport, or attempt to transport, or conspire to transport in this state an alien* in furtherance of the unlawful presence** of the alien in the United States, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of federal law. *
Although I am certainly no lawyer it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that baptizing an illegal alien will turn out to be illegal. There doesn’t seem to be anything in that bill that would lead to the apocalyptic restrictions the archbishop listed.
Ender
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
- Status