A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

There is a world of difference between giving somebody immediate emergency assistance and 'helping' them get back to where they came from and in providing them with subsidized food, shelter, education, healthcare, and other benefits for the rest of their life. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that the Samaritan took the injured victim to raise but rather he took care of the immediate emergency. Luke's parable was to illustrate what it is to be a 'good neighbor'.

There is much in the Bible re the obligations of a host to an invited guest. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible that suggests a 'good neighbor' can walk into another's house and demand free food, shelter, education, medical care and immunity from being sent home.

I see nothing unChristian, immoral, or unkind in making it illegal to encourage such activity.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There is a world of difference between giving somebody immediate emergency assistance and 'helping' them get back to where they came from and in providing them with subsidized food, shelter, education, healthcare, and other benefits for the rest of their life. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that the Samaritan took the injured victim to raise but rather he took care of the immediate emergency. Luke's parable was to illustrate what it is to be a 'good neighbor'.

There is nothing anywhere in the Bible that suggests a 'good neighbor' can walk into another's house and demand free food, shelter, education, medical care and immunity from being sent home.

I see nothing unChristian or immoral in making it illegal to encourage such activity.

The objection in the Bill in which Clinton said was unchristian was not about taking the illegal immigrants to raise, but private citizens and charities offering assistance to illegal immigrants.

The following is the part in which Hillary objected to in the reform bill and the context in which she made her statement about "unchristian."

Quote:

"would literally criminalize ... every person who helped, assisted, reached out [or] otherwise responded in a humanitarian way to the needs of immigrants."

Quote:

In a brief news conference Wednesday, Clinton (D-N.Y.) said that a bill the House approved in December "would literally criminalize not only every nondocumented immigrant in our country but every person who helped, assisted, reached out [or] otherwise responded in a humanitarian way to the needs of immigrants.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself," she said.

She is not the only one to object to this particular bill.

Quote:

In a March 1 statement issued on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which "strongly opposes H.R. 4437," Washington, D.C., archbishop Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick warned that the bill "would extend to U.S. citizens ... including those, such as our own parishioners, who offer, in an act of mercy, basic sustenance to an undocumented migrant." In a March 22 New York Times op-ed, Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of Los Angeles, wrote: "As written, the proposed law is so broad that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or administering first aid

."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603240016

A portion of the parable of the good samaritan.

Quote:

33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:25-37&version=31;

The Bill

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Making it illegal to help a person in need, no matter who he is - making it illegal to have mercy on someone in need, no matter who he is - thats downright unchristian.

Nobody's making it illegal to help someone with emergency medical care or food, water, and emergency shelter if he or she is about to starve, die of thirst, or exposure. But after thats done, then it is also proper to help people be returned to their residence of citizenship. Allowing someone to break immigration laws or any other law simply because that person may wish to break those laws for their own benefit is in no way in accord with the teachings of the Bible. Good grief!

0 Replies

Actually, I think that is exactly a feature of the anti-immigration measure that was passed by the house -- it would make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care.

I'm new to this, don't know a lot about it, but the above is from Krugman's column today and seems easily enough verified (I'll see what I can find).

0 Replies

From Revel's link, here is the pertinent text assuming I didn't overlook one somewhere else in this lengthy piece of legislation:

SEC. 204. REENTRY OF REMOVED ALIENS.

Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1326) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking all that follows `United States' and inserting a comma;

(B) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking `imprisoned not more than 2 years,' and insert `imprisoned for a term of not less than 1 year and not more than 2 years,';

(C) by adding at the end the following: `It shall be an affirmative defense to an offense under this subsection that (A) prior to an alien's reembarkation at a place outside the United States or an alien's application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Secretary of Homeland Security has expressly consented to the alien's reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed, such alien was not required to obtain such advance consent under this Act or any prior Act.';

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `imprisoned not more than 10 years,' and insert `imprisoned for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years,';

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking `imprisoned not more than 20 years,' and insert `imprisoned for a term of not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years,';

(C) in paragraph (3), by striking `. or' and inserting `; or';

(D) in paragraph (4), by striking `imprisoned for not more than 10 years,' and insert `imprisoned for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years,'; and

(E) by adding at the end the following: `The prior convictions in paragraphs (1) and (2) are elements of enhanced crimes and the penalties under such paragraphs shall apply only where the conviction (or convictions) that form the basis for the additional penalty are alleged in the indictment or information and are proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or admitted by the defendant in pleading guilty. Any admissible evidence may be used to show that the prior conviction is a qualifying crime and the criminal trial for a violation of either such paragraph shall not be bifurcated.';

(3) in subsections (b)(3), (b)(4), and (c), by striking `Attorney General' and inserting `Secretary of Homeland Security' each place it appears;

(4) in subsection (c), by striking `242(h)(2)' and inserting `241(a)(4)'; and

(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(e) For purposes of this section, the term `attempts to enter' refers to the general intent of the alien to enter the United States and does not refer to the intent of the alien to violate the law.'.

SEC. 205. MANDATORY SENTENCING RANGES FOR PERSONS AIDING OR ASSISTING CERTAIN REENTERING ALIENS.

Section 277 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1327) is amended--

(1) by striking `Any person' and inserting `(a) Subject to subsection (b), any person'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b)(1) Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien violating section 276(b) to reenter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to reenter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for a term imposed under paragraph (2), or both.

`(2) The term of imprisonment imposed under paragraph (1) shall be within the range to which the reentering alien is subject under section 276(b).'.

Looks to me that the intent is to make it criminal to intentionally aid and abet illegal entry into the country. It would apply to the viscious coyotes who are smuggling people into the country at great risk and mistreatment of the smuggled and also those who are profiting from helping people get (and stay) here illegally.

I have no problem with that legislation especially if it applies to bringing people back in that have already been deported at least once.

0 Replies

The whole issue is an issue of fairness. Why should anybody be able to come into the country illegally and get in line for citizenship ahead of those who have waited for months or years for their legal entry?

Why should anybody be rewarded for breaking the law by being furnished free medical care, food stamps, welfare benefits, free education for their children, housing subsidies etc.?

It is especially insidious to assign citizenship to those who came illegally purely because they have been here for years, sometimes decades. And when you also provide all the benefits available to US citizenships, where is any deterrant to coming here again and again? Can you think of any other issue in which people are rewarded at taxpayer expense for breaking the law of the land?

I know many people here, some with green cards, some who immigrated legally and became citizens, some who were awarded citizenship under various amnesty provisions, and some who are just here illegally who have absolutely no fear of being deported. Most of these are good people who work hard and cause no problems to anybody. But we simply cannot open our doors and take everybody in who wants to be here and give them all the benefits of citizenship without being inundated. Many border cities are already stressed to the breaking point.

Of course there can be guest worker programs and I advocate employers who can't find Americans to work be able to go to other countries and hire people on temporary work programs. I see no evil in requiring all people, both citizens and visitors, to respect and obey our laws.

0 Replies

Recent AP take on it -- basically, sounds like it was in fact an issue, but was just (as in a matter of hours ago) remedied:

Quote:

refusing to make criminals of people who help illegal immigrants.

The Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that would protect church and charitable groups, as well as individuals, from criminal prosecution for providing food, shelter, medical care and counseling to undocumented immigrants.

"Charitable organizations, like individuals, should be able to provide humanitarian assistance to immigrants without fearing prosecution," Durbin said.

-snip-

In December the House voted to make offers of non-emergency aid a felony. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, proposed Monday requiring humanitarian groups providing aid to illegal immigrants to register with the Department of Homeland Security but withdrew the idea in the face of opposition from the Senate panel.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3750929.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There is a world of difference between giving somebody immediate emergency assistance and 'helping' them get back to where they came from and in providing them with subsidized food, shelter, education, healthcare, and other benefits for the rest of their life.

Still, if somebody wishes to give them these things on their own money, why make it a crime to let them? Remember, we're not talking about subsidizing these things with tax money that you are forced to pay. We are talking about, for example, a church volunteer running a soup kitchen on volunteer donation, who chooses not to ask for an ID before it gives you your soup. In your opinion, should this person be a statutory criminal?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Nobody's making it illegal to help someone with emergency medical care or food, water, and emergency shelter

Okie, did you read Revel's link about what two Archbishops said about the law as it was originally proposed and passed by the House?

Here it is again:

Quote:

In a March 1 statement issued on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, [..] archbishop Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick warned that the bill "would extend to U.S. citizens ... including those, such as our own parishioners, who offer, in an act of mercy, basic sustenance to an undocumented migrant."

In a March 22 New York Times op-ed, Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of Los Angeles, wrote: "As written, the proposed law is so broad that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or administering first aid."

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Still, if somebody wishes to give them these things on their own money, why make it a crime to let them? Remember, we're not talking about subsidizing these things with tax money that you are forced to pay. We are talking about, for example, a church volunteer running a soup kitchen on volunteer donation, who chooses not to ask for an ID before it gives you your soup. In your opinion, should this person be a statutory criminal?

You probably rmember that some years ago it was nearly quite common here in Germany for church parishes, traditionally especially done by Evangelical parishes, to grant denied asylum seekers "church asylum".
Which was not only an unofficial asylum, but illegal as well.

(No-one called them criminals, though - and the longest church asylum around her - 18 months - was given in a Catholic church :wink: )

0 Replies

I favor very severe fines for illegally hiring non-citizens, and that alone would go a long way in solving the problem. If there were no jobs here for illegal immigrants, they would soon quit coming here. And if there are no government assistance programs available unless in severe case of life threatening situations, that would also help. I would not fine anybody that gives emergency aid to someone in a traffic accident or becomes deathly sick all of a sudden or something like that, but surely that is not what we are talking about here.

A generous legal immigration policy should be in place along with strict enforcement of illegal immigration.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I would not fine anybody that gives emergency aid to someone in a traffic accident or becomes deathly sick all of a sudden or something like that, but surely that is not what we are talking about here.

If a fellow human being is hungry or sick and you can help, you should ... isnt that what the Samaritan story is all about? I didnt see anything in the Samaritan bible quote about it only applying in life-threatening situations either..

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There is a world of difference between giving somebody immediate emergency assistance and 'helping' them get back to where they came from and in providing them with subsidized food, shelter, education, healthcare, and other benefits for the rest of their life.

Still, if somebody wishes to give them these things on their own money, why make it a crime to let them? Remember, we're not talking about subsidizing these things with tax money that you are forced to pay. We are talking about, for example, a church volunteer running a soup kitchen on volunteer donation, who chooses not to ask for an ID before it gives you your soup. In your opinion, should this person be a statutory criminal?

Well so far I haven't seen a piece of legislation that would suggest that I would be breaking the law if I gave a hungry illegal person a sandwich. Have you? Or have you just seen people politicizing it with little or no substance to back it up? This would be way different than me providing that same person a job, permanent housing, helping him/her get his/her kids into school, etc. etc.

THe only legislation I have seen so far is that going after people who are helping people enter illegally and stay here illegally.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
I would not fine anybody that gives emergency aid to someone in a traffic accident or becomes deathly sick all of a sudden or something like that, but surely that is not what we are talking about here.

If a fellow human being is hungry or sick and you can help, you should ... isnt that what the Samaritan story is all about? I didnt see anything in the Samaritan bible quote about it only applying in life-threatening situations either..

Again, where is the evidence that the person the Good Samaritan helped was knowingly breaking the law for being where he was?

0 Replies

See, there's the point Okie - there isnt any talk of that. The Samaritan story doesnt tell you to help a needy person but only under the condition that criteria 1, 2, 4 and 7a have been fulfilled. It simply tells you: if someone is in need and you can help, then doing so is the right thing. End.

0 Replies

But what if 12 million people claim 'need' Nimh? That's the estimate of the illegals we are dealing with.

Will your country take them in and provide health care, education, housing, jobs, etc. for them? Will any European country? How much are you personally willing to invest of your own money for this cause? What would your policy be?

It's so easy to be compassionate and generous and do the 'right thing' with other people's money. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Will your country take them in and provide health care, education, housing, jobs, etc. for them? Will any European country? How much are you personally willing to invest of your own money for this cause? What would your policy be?

Although this would be another turn in the Samaritarian story from the bible - we Europeans have our problems with our illegals admittingly as well.

You certainly know the ratioa of inhabitants vs. illegals in e.g. the Netherlands compared to the USA - and the landmass of both countries, do you Foxfyre?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But what if 12 million people claim 'need' Nimh? That's the estimate of the illegals we are dealing with.

Will your country take them in and provide health care, education, housing, jobs, etc. for them? Will any European country? How much are you personally willing to invest of your own money for this cause? What would your policy be?

It's so easy to be compassionate and generous and do the 'right thing' with other people's money.

Shall we stick with the subject at hand, Fox?

Reminder: we were talking about the original law that had been passed by the House, which included language broad enough, if we can believe the word of two archbishops on this, to make it a crime for individuals and non-governmental organisations/charities to offer such help of their own accord.

Not talking about state funding or subsidized support; but about the Republican House wanting to make it illegal for someone like you or me or some organisation we're a member of (the Church, say) to provide non-emergency support to an undocumented resident.

What is your opinion on that? How does that relate to the story of the good Samaritan?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well so far I haven't seen a piece of legislation that would suggest that I would be breaking the law if I gave a hungry illegal person a sandwich.

That wasn't my question. My question was: Should such a person check for the hungry person's ID or else be criminally liable if the hungry one turns out to be illegal?

Foxfyre wrote:

Have you?

I don't know -- the relevant part of the bill is so vaguely written that it's impossible to tell.

Congressman Sensenbrenner, in the bill we are discussing wrote:

Section 202

ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES

`(1) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES- Whoever--

`(A) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to come to or enter the United States, or to attempt to come to or enter the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to come to or enter the United States;

`(B) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to come to or enter the United States at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, regardless of whether such person has official permission or lawful authority to be in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien;

`(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;

`(D) transports or moves a person in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to enter or be in the United States, where the transportation or movement will aid or further in any manner the person's illegal entry into or illegal presence in the United States;

`(E) harbors, conceals, or shields from detection a person in the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to be in the United States;

`(F) transports, moves, harbors, conceals, or shields from detection a person outside of the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien in unlawful transit from one country to another or on the high seas, under circumstances in which the person is in fact seeking to enter the United States without official permission or lawful authority; or

`(G) conspires or attempts to commit any of the preceding acts,

When you give someone already in America a sandwich, somebody in Mexico thinks you might give him one too if push comes to shove -- are you "encouraging" him to come to the United States? When you offer someone a bed to crash onto, are you `harboring' him under this bill? Given my mistrust of activist judges -- which you share if memory serves -- the vagueness of the bill's language seems almost as good as a "yes" to me.

Foxfyre wrote:

This would be way different than me providing that same person a job, permanent housing, helping him/her get his/her kids into school, etc. etc.

Why? If I want somebody to sit my baby, he wants to sit it, and we agree on a price, why am I obliged to police whether he has a right to be in the country? Or if he wants to rent an apartment from me and I want to rent it to him? Or when he needs a translator for communicating with the school principal? I am not the government's Blockwart. (Sorry, I can't translate that term, as that would trigger Godwin's Law.)

Foxfyre wrote:

Will your country take them in and provide health care, education, housing, jobs, etc. for them? Will any European country? How much are you personally willing to invest of your own money for this cause? What would your policy be?

Our policy would be to lock them out and leave them to their dismal, but fortunately short lives in Africa and the Middle East -- because they would break our big welfare states if we admitted them. There is a duplicity behind this policy that I have a been complaining about for several years here. The liberal welfare state is not nearly as humand as liberals think it is. The problem is encapsulated in one of Paul Krugman's remarks in his article yesterday: "Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. " And while Krugman says he is "instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration", his "basic decency" seems quite comfortable with leaving them without essential health care and education in Mexico, where sensitive Americans can't see them suffer. It's cold comfort for Mexicans that we Europeans are even worse.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But what if 12 million people claim 'need' Nimh? That's the estimate of the illegals we are dealing with.

Will your country take them in and provide health care, education, housing, jobs, etc. for them? Will any European country? How much are you personally willing to invest of your own money for this cause? What would your policy be?

It's so easy to be compassionate and generous and do the 'right thing' with other people's money.

Shall we stick with the subject at hand, Fox?

Reminder: we were talking about the original law that had been passed by the House, which included language broad enough, if we can believe the word of two archbishops on this, to make it a crime for individuals and non-governmental organisations/charities to offer such help of their own accord.

Not talking about state funding or subsidized support; but about the Republican House wanting to make it illegal for someone like you or me or some organisation we're a member of (the Church, say) to provide non-emergency support to an undocumented resident.

What is your opinion on that? How does that relate to the story of the good Samaritan?

I believe the big picture is as much a part of the subject at hand as is the action of the individual. Here, and probably there too, there is a provision of law assessing consequence for 'aiding and abetting' the illegal activities of another. As Okie keeps pointing out, there is no indication that either the victim or the Samaritan was doing anything illegal in the Bible parable.

Again I have seen neither text nor intent that giving a hungry man a sandwich would be an illegal act. I have seen (and been listening to the debate) the sense that we cannot assimilate all the world's poor and something must be done to discourage all those millions from coming here. Among many provisions suggested for dealing with the problem is enforcing consequences for those who provide material assistance and services that allows them to stay here. Yes you feed the hungry person and bind up his wounds.

And then you call the INS to come pick him up and send him home. You can't separate the one from the millions.

The law is by no means fully written or finished here and dedicated effort is in progress to avoid inadvertently criminalizing activities of the good Samaritan providing emergency assistance. I do hope they stick to their guns, however, to make it far less hospitable for those who break our laws and that includes the illegals and an employer, the Church, or any other organization who intentionally aids and abets illegals to be here and stay here.

Americans are giving and compassionate people and I believe we take in more legal immigrants than any other country and I expect that we will continue to do so. Our government and our private citizens also contribute massive resources to help others in need. It is wrong to afford illegals the same opportunities and benefits as enjoyed by those who jump through the considerable hoops to come here legally.

And it will benefit nobody and we will be able to help nobody if we destroy our stability and prosperity by not enforcing our own reasonable laws.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know