Another Church Flouts the Law

Fnord · 19th July 2010, 12:36 PM

There are organizations within our cities that defy current law by flaunting the sanctuary they give illegal immigrants. Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles is one such organization. They are currently harboring an illegal immigrant by the name of Yolanda Trujillo, even going so far as to remodel a storage room adjacent to their choir room into a studio apartment. Ms. Trujillo lives there with her daughter Anabella. Complicating this arrangement is the fact that three of the church's elders are producing a video documentary on this crime and their complicity in it. Their names are Mason Funk, Leanna Creel, and Ricardo Moreno. Everything you need to know is explicitely stated on their website, "Sanctuary's Daughter".

My own wife immigrated legally to this country, went through the entire process openly and honestly, and is now a fully naturalized citizen of these United States. She and her relatives have "played by the rules" and contribute to our economy. That others can cheat the system by breaking the law and still be allowed to remain in this country is a gross miscarriage of justice.

[OPINION=MINE]

To allow any organization - religious or secular - to place itself so arrogantly above the law is to make a mockery of every legal immigrant's efforts, and a travesty of the American legal system.

[/OPINION]

sadhatter · 19th July 2010, 12:44 PM

You know , let's say a different organization was doing this let's say macdonalds was found to be harboring illegal aliens.

How many people would protest and stop eating there?

Yet it is perfectly okay when the church does it.

You know i can empathize with the person's plight, but that does not change the fact that the church is doing something illegal. Something that any other organization that tried would be hung out to dry for.

Ron_Tomkins · 19th July 2010, 12:49 PM

I don't know much about the details of this case, but there actually is one legally valid alternative for immigrants which is the Religious VISA. I'm not sure if this applies in this particular case.

Goshawk · 19th July 2010, 01:04 PM

Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing that prevents the INS from simply walking in there and deporting them. The web page you linked to says:

Quote:

They woudn't be entirely safe from the authorities. But they would be spiritually safe.

Found this:

http://www.ww4report.com/node/2356

Quote:

ICE spokesperson Tim Counts said agents have the authority to go into a church or anywhere else to make an arrest.

AFAIK there is no legal principle of "sanctuary" in America. What's holding the INS back is the potential for a public relations disaster, not any legal considerations of "sanctuary".

So you can put some of your sense of outrage back in the box.

She's not protected from anything, she's just squatting in the church until the INS feels like dealing with her.

Or until she leaves the church, and they grab her. That's what happened to this woman.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4OQQ80

So this church isn't "flouting the law" by granting her anything special or unusual, any more than a Mcdonalds would be "flouting the law" by allowing her to live in their employees breakroom. Do you think the McDonalds should kick her out into the street? What if the McD's manager feels sorry for her? Is it illegal for the McD's to allow her to live in their breakroom? Is it the responsibility of the McD's manager to hand her over to the INS?

ETA: Yup, I thought so.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s126.htm

Quote:

SANCTUARY

A place of refuge, where the process of the law cannot be executed.

Sanctuaries may be divided into religious and civil. The former were very common in Europe; religious houses affording protection from arrest to all persons, whether accused of crime, or pursued for debt. This kind was never known in the United States.

Civil sanctuary, or that protection which is afforded to a man by his own house, was always respected in this country. The house protects the owner from the service of all civil process in the first instance but not if he is once lawfully arrested and takes refuge in his own house. No place affords protection from arrest in criminal cases; a man may, therefore, be arrested in his own bouse in such cases, and the doors may be broken for the purpose of making the arrest.

There is no legal principle of sanctuary in the U.S., so the church isn't "flouting the law", because it's not protecting or shielding her from the law at all; the law can go in there any time it wants and carry out her deportation.

sadhatter · 19th July 2010, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Goshawk

Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing that prevents the INS from simply walking in there and deporting them. The web page you linked to says:

Found this:

http://www.ww4report.com/node/2356

AFAIK there is no legal principle of "sanctuary" in America. What's holding the INS back is the potential for a public relations disaster, not any legal considerations of "sanctuary".

So you can put some of your sense of outrage back in the box.

She's not protected from anything, she's just squatting in the church until the INS feels like dealing with her.

Or until she leaves the church, and they grab her. That's what happened to this woman.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4OQQ80

So this church isn't "flouting the law" by granting her anything special or unusual, any more than a Mcdonalds would be "flouting the law" by allowing her to live in their employees breakroom. Do you think the McDonalds should kick her out into the street? What if the McD's manager feels sorry for her? Is it illegal for the McD's to allow her to live in their breakroom? Is it the responsibility of the McD's manager to hand her over to the INS?

As a matter of fact most places do have laws that require one to report something illegal. Sure it is not really possible to enforce that much, but in a case like this, where it is, indeed the church and in the hypothetical MCdonalds do have a responsibility to inform the authorities.

I can understand it sucks for the person. And i can see where someone would feel sorry for them, but this is not about the person, this is about an organization promoting ignoring the law.

Sympathy is no excuse for ignoring the law. I may feel sorry for a heroin addict friend of mine, but once i start letting them shoot up in my house a line is crossed.

There are legitimate ways to get into the country ways that my grandparents had to go through. Why should others not have to follow this?

Fnord · 19th July 2010, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Goshawk

So this church isn't "flouting the law" by granting her anything special or unusual...

The church is flouting the law by not only breaking the law, but documenting and advertising their criminal activities in the process.

Originally Posted by Goshawk

... any more than a McDonald's would be "flouting the law" by allowing her to live in their employees breakroom...

It's illegal to harbor or employ illegal immigrants, no matter where it occurs.

Originally Posted by Goshawk

Do you think the McDonald's should kick her out into the street?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Goshawk

What if the McD's manager feels sorry for her?

That is an irrelevant appeal -- a Non Sequitur, at the very least. I feel sorry for Lindsey Lohan, but I'm not going to ask her or any other convicted criminal to live in my home.

Originally Posted by Goshawk

Is it illegal for the McD's to allow her to live in their breakroom?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Goshawk

Is it the responsibility of the McD's manager to hand her over to the INS?

Yes. Otherwise, it's Aiding and Abetting a Criminal, Being an Accessory Before and During the Commission of a Crime, et cetera...

I've already reported this crime to the authorities, but as you pointed out, it would be a PR disaster for the the government to serve and execute an arrest warrant on all involved persons...

... and a field day for the liberal media.

Goshawk · 19th July 2010, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

There are legitimate ways to get into the country ways that my grandparents had to go through. Why should others not have to follow this?

Because it's considerably more difficult nowadays than it was for your grandparents? Not excusing, just explaining.

Look at this.
http://reason.org/files/a87d15508538...458f116079.pdf

Fnord · 19th July 2010, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Goshawk

Because it's considerably more difficult nowadays than it was for your grandparents? Not excusing, just explaining.

Look at this.
http://reason.org/files/a87d15508538...458f116079.pdf

It took less than 18 months for my wife to obtain her citizenship, from downloading the application to the swearing-in.

SonOfLaertes · 19th July 2010, 02:07 PM

The "documentary" here is the part that irks me. They are undoubtedly intending to use it as a tool to humiliate and vilify the INS agents who are eventually sent to do their job. I'm quite sure the role of victim will be played to the hilt during the arrest, with much crying and wailing.

I must say that I'm on the fence over the issue of immigration in this country, but then I don't live in a border state. The issue is complex.

Something like this, however - using a church to frame a situation in a certain way, with the intent on vilifying law enforcement personnel - this sort of thing would push me away from sympathy for illegal immigrants quickly. These stunads need to back away from using their church as a political tool before they get what they wish for - publicity.

SonOfLaertes · 19th July 2010, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Goshawk

....
There is no legal principle of sanctuary in the U.S., so the church isn't "flouting the law", because it's not protecting or shielding her from the law at all; the law can go in there any time it wants and carry out her deportation.

Incorrect. The church is flouting its status as a sanctuary.

There may be no real laws preventing the INS from going in and making an arrest, but there is an undeniable tradition in this country to treat churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. with special care. Their tax-free status is predicated on lack of involvement in such issues. The perpetrators of this situation know this and are playing on that status.

Do you actually believe these people are doing other churches a favor by angering the anti-immigration legions?

SOdhner · 19th July 2010, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Goshawk

There is no legal principle of sanctuary in the U.S., so the church isn't "flouting the law", because it's not protecting or shielding her from the law at all; the law can go in there any time it wants and carry out her deportation.

I'd actually say it wouldn't be flouting the law if the sanctuary meant something because in that case it would simply be making use of a legal right. The fact that "sanctuary" is meaningless in this case might make this come off as worse, more brazen, because they're dancing around making a show of it.

I'm fairly lenient on the immigration issue personally, but I recognize that being lenient isn't a useful position. I know I think there are problems with the current system - strictly following the law isn't really possible in some cases due to the scope of the problem, and just ignoring the laws doesn't help either. If I were a better person I would be working to change the laws, but... meh.

Sometimes stunts like this can be done with that in mind - they want to draw attention as a way of getting their view out. Knowing very little about this specific case, I don't get the feeling that they're doing a good job of it and they should have taken a different approach.

Fnord · 19th July 2010, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by SOdhner

... If I were a better person I would be working to change the laws, but... meh.

Sometimes stunts like this can be done with that in mind - they want to draw attention as a way of getting their view out. Knowing very little about this specific case, I don't get the feeling that they're doing a good job of it and they should have taken a different approach.

I think that if all the emotional appeals and irrelevant facts were removed from the documentary, not only would it be considerable shorter, but the case would likely go against the illegal immigrant, the producers, and the church as well.

It seems to be all one big appeal to emotion, disguised as a documentary, and for the sole purpose of embarrassing the powers-that-be into making the immigration laws more lenient.

In 2008, the Proposition 8 proponents made a similar mistake in presenting their case as a largely emotional one. Voters that had used "facts and reason" (

) to make up their minds weren't swayed to change their votes in favor of the measure.

hgc · 20th July 2010, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by SonOfLaertes

Incorrect. The church is flouting its status as a sanctuary.

There may be no real laws preventing the INS from going in and making an arrest, but there is an undeniable tradition in this country to treat churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. with special care. Their tax-free status is predicated on lack of involvement in such issues. The perpetrators of this situation know this and are playing on that status.

Do you actually believe these people are doing other churches a favor by angering the anti-immigration legions?

I see no connection between the sanctuary tradition and the tax-free status of religious institutions (which depends on staying out of elective politics, not staying out of all public policy activism). I say this especially in light of the fact that sanctuary is merely tradition, and not legal standing.

Look at it this way: Is the government agency responsible here (ICE) saying, can't go there, it's a tax-exempt church, or is it can't go there, it's a church?

Fnord · 20th July 2010, 05:26 PM

More like, "Let's wait until after the fall elections to go in there", in my opinion.

FOX News has not covered this issue. The Minuteman Project has not done anything about it, either. I think that whoever does go in there will have to first prepare themselves for a huge political backlash from Lefties, Churchies, and Immigrant Rights groups.

Imagine ... left-wing liberals teaming up with right-wing religionists to protect a semi-literate, unemployed, illegal immigrant from being sent back to where she came from.

hgc · 20th July 2010, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

.. Imagine ... left-wing liberals teaming up with right-wing religionists...

I don't know where right-wing religionists come into it on the same side of left-wing liberals. Have you checked in with Pastor Hagee lately?

Quote:

I want those of you in the State Department and in government in Washington to hear this: if America does not stop pressuring Israel to give up land, I believe that God will bring this nation into judgment, because I believe what this book says. And if God brings this nation into judgment, He will very likely release the terrorists that you’ve already let get here through the ridiculous immigration policy you refuse to stop, and this nation is going to go through a bloodbath that you have permitted because of what you have done.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/7...holic_anti_gay

Got that? Our immigration policy is God's gateway for sending in terrorists. That's some old-time religion for ya.

Originally Posted by Fnord

... to protect a semi-literate, unemployed, illegal immigrant from being sent back to where she came from.

You, on the other hand, are a veritable font of Christian charity.

slingblade · 20th July 2010, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

a semi-literate, unemployed, illegal immigrant from being sent back to where she came from.

What's funny to me is the number of semi-literate, unemployed legal Americans who consider themselves too good to pick crops in this heat, but damned well expect someone to do it.

MG1962 · 20th July 2010, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

It took less than 18 months for my wife to obtain her citizenship, from downloading the application to the swearing-in.

but how long did it take to get to legal resident?

Slimething · 20th July 2010, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

It took less than 18 months for my wife to obtain her citizenship, from downloading the application to the swearing-in.

I think you missed the point of goshawk's post. Did you notice the little guy at the bottom of the linked poster? Unskilled means outtaluck. As you've written, the woman you want deported is unskilled so breaking the law is the only way she can stay in the country.

Your wife's acquisition of citizenship in 18 months was done under very unusual circumstances. Why are you pretending that it's that easy for everyone? I would venture a guess that most women would not want to be married to you for three years before applying for citizenship. Did Sanctuary Woman refuse your advances? Is that why you're fixated?

Originally Posted by Fnord

FOX News has not covered this issue. The Minuteman Project has not done anything about it, either. I think that whoever does go in there will have to first prepare themselves for a huge political backlash from Lefties, Churchies, and Immigrant Rights groups.

Maybe nobody cares! That's a real possibility! I know I don't.

Quote:

Imagine ... left-wing liberals teaming up with right-wing religionists to protect a semi-literate, unemployed, illegal immigrant from being sent back to where she came from.

Maybe she's bothering fewer people than you are. Why don't you go back where you came from?

Slimething · 20th July 2010, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

but how long did it take to get to legal resident?

He's misrepresenting her case. She was married to him for at least three years before applying. He's a US citizen. I provided a link in my earlier post.

MG1962 · 21st July 2010, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Slimething

He's misrepresenting her case. She was married to him for at least three years before applying. He's a US citizen. I provided a link in my earlier post.

Thats why I asked what I did - I am a legal resident in the US - 18 months from filing the application to getting my green card. Not including lost wages, it directly cost about $4000.00 to do it

Going through the process gave me a different perspective on the whole immigration debate. We are all citizens of a nation through pure accidents of birth.

Some of us strike it lucky and grow up in stable wealthy nations. Some get to call North Korea or Zimbawa home. The reality is, we are nothing special when it comes to where is home. It was a case our parents decided to have a romantic momment, and nothing else

Fnord · 21st July 2010, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

... You, on the other hand, are a veritable font of Christian charity.

You're joking, right?

"Christian Charity" in this context seems to mean, "Break the law in such a way that anyone enforcing the law gains the reputation as a jack-booted thug of the Great Atheist Conspiracy."

KodeBlue · 21st July 2010, 12:28 PM

Issues of "sanctuary" aside, aren't they violating housing and zoning laws? If there is achild living there why hasn't child protective services investigating to make sure it is a safe and healthy living environment for a child?

sadhatter · 21st July 2010, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade

What's funny to me is the number of semi-literate, unemployed legal Americans who consider themselves too good to pick crops in this heat, but damned well expect someone to do it.

So a-holes are a-holes, film at 11.

Yes there are lazy americans, does that mean that suddenly the law does not apply? Or was there another relevant point that i was missing?

epeos76 · 21st July 2010, 12:44 PM

Assuming the church is flouting the law I imagine its because they believe it's an unjust law. It's an act of civil disobedience - a political tradition with fine justification in secular philosophy. It would be really troubling if the church had some special legal status in this respect, but as Goshawk pointed out, it doesn't - they are open to the same consequences as anyone else if the government has the attention and nerve to impose them.

I'm not sure why you're so outraged. Is it because the church is putting itself forward as a moral leader? But presumably McDonald's could do this, too. It's likely people would scoff, because deservedly or not, they don't have the same reputation, but presumably if McD's management was sincere, being scoffed at is one of the risks they would be prepared to endure to do what they thought was right.

hgc · 21st July 2010, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

You're joking, right?

Yes, I was joking - or more specifically, being sarcastic about your bubbling bile over this particular illegal immigrant (semi-literate, unemployed).

Quote:

"Christian Charity" in this context seems to mean, "Break the law in such a way that anyone enforcing the law gains the reputation as a jack-booted thug of the Great Atheist Conspiracy."

This is just plain weird. You keep going on like there is a right-wing element to this church's activism. You must assume that all religious people are righties, or something. Absent evidence, I refuse to believe that this church is doing this to do paint the authorities who eventually take this woman into custody as atheist conspirators.

hgc · 21st July 2010, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

The church is flouting the law by not only breaking the law, but documenting and advertising their criminal activities in the process.

What law are they breaking? Be specific.

sadhatter · 21st July 2010, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by epeos76

Assuming the church is flouting the law I imagine its because they believe it's an unjust law. It's an act of civil disobedience - a political tradition with fine justification in secular philosophy. It would be really troubling if the church had some special legal status in this respect, but as Goshawk pointed out, it doesn't - they are open to the same consequences as anyone else if the government has the attention and nerve to impose them.

I'm not sure why you're so outraged. Is it because the church is putting itself forward as a moral leader? But presumably McDonald's could do this, too. It's likely people would scoff, because deservedly or not, they don't have the same reputation, but presumably if McD's management was sincere, being scoffed at is one of the risks they would be prepared to endure to do what they thought was right.

Think of it this way.

I disobey certain laws, i am sure to a greater or lesser extent we all do. But if i were to make a movie that went like this.......

" Hello viewers, today we are going to do some illegal ****, that is right, we are going to break laws, and tape it. First we are going to smoke a half pound of dope, then we are going to download some music illegally, then we are going to help 12 lucky illegal immigrants into the country...."

I would be arrested in short order, yet the church due to its political influence can openly make a documentary about breaking the law and feel no repercussions.

That is the problem, whether you agree with this particular situation or not, the church is not only breaking the law, but taping it and getting nothing done at all. If i can't do it, they can't do it.

Fnord · 21st July 2010, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

What law are they breaking? Be specific.

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The above was taken from a website promoting immigration reform.

Fnord · 21st July 2010, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by epeos76

Assuming the church is flouting the law...

Which they are.

Originally Posted by epeos76

I imagine its because they believe it's an unjust law. It's an act of civil disobedience - a political tradition with fine justification in secular philosophy. It would be really troubling if the church had some special legal status in this respect, but as Goshawk pointed out, it doesn't - they are open to the same consequences as anyone else if the government has the attention and nerve to impose them.

Exactly. Because Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, there is no law on the books granting priviledge to any religious organization to place itself above the law.

Originally Posted by epeos76

I'm not sure why you're so outraged.

1. A church is violating at least one law - a federal immigration law. No religious institution is above the law; at least, not in America.

2. Three of the elders of that church are documenting their illegal activities and presenting their video documentary for free access on the web - this is where the law is being flouted.

3. At the beginning of their video, a homeless camp can be clearly seen across the alley from the church. If they're acting out of compassion (as they claim), then I wonder why they prefer to commit an illegal act in the harboring of an illegal alien when their neighborhood is a camping ground for homeless American citizens.

4. The producers are trying to elicit support from other church organizations, using appeals to emotion and other coercive language.

Slimething · 21st July 2010, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Thats why I asked what I did - I am a legal resident in the US - 18 months from filing the application to getting my green card. Not including lost wages, it directly cost about $4000.00 to do it

Going through the process gave me a different perspective on the whole immigration debate. We are all citizens of a nation through pure accidents of birth.

Some of us strike it lucky and grow up in stable wealthy nations. Some get to call North Korea or Zimbawa home. The reality is, we are nothing special when it comes to where is home. It was a case our parents decided to have a romantic momment, and nothing else

Congratulations on getting your green card! My family went through the process and it took us roughly eight years to jump all the hurdles. Tough times. That's why I don't appreciate this instance of mean-spirited misrepresentation of a very difficult process.

If Fnord knew anything about the naturalization procedure, he'd realize that applicants are in the maws of a Federal agency that basically does what it wants with them because they can't vote. Doesn't seem like he does, though. He's still going on about this woman.

epeos76 · 22nd July 2010, 08:10 AM

Betcha a dollar the church does spend a big chunk of its mission budget helping homeless Americans.

In any case, intentionally, openly, and peacefully refusing to comply with a law that the church deems deeply unjust isn't enough to justify outrage for me. It's easy to imagine clear cut cases where that would be an act of heroic moral leadership e.g. refusing to comply with the fugitive slave act. There are certainly a lot of progressives today who feel U.S. immigration law is patently unjust, especially after revelations about the conditions under which suspected illegal immigrants can be detained and the inadequacy of the hearings.

Even assuming you think the law is basically just, it's still pretty unproblematic because the church is acting openly and peacefully and isn't asking for any special treatment with respect to the consequences. Assuming the law is just then they're courageous moral idiots, but not hypocrits or threats to civil society. It seems to me the you're rejecting the idea that the church can practice civil disobedience at all. Of course, I may be completely wrong. Maybe there is something special about what they are doing, or about U.S. immigration law?

19th July 2010, 12:36 PM	#1
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Another Church Flouts the Law There are organizations within our cities that defy current law by flaunting the sanctuary they give illegal immigrants. Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles is one such organization. They are currently harboring an illegal immigrant by the name of Yolanda Trujillo, even going so far as to remodel a storage room adjacent to their choir room into a studio apartment. Ms. Trujillo lives there with her daughter Anabella. Complicating this arrangement is the fact that three of the church's elders are producing a video documentary on this crime and their complicity in it. Their names are Mason Funk, Leanna Creel, and Ricardo Moreno. Everything you need to know is explicitely stated on their website, "Sanctuary's Daughter". My own wife immigrated legally to this country, went through the entire process openly and honestly, and is now a fully naturalized citizen of these United States. She and her relatives have "played by the rules" and contribute to our economy. That others can cheat the system by breaking the law and still be allowed to remain in this country is a gross miscarriage of justice. [OPINION=MINE] To allow any organization - religious or secular - to place itself so arrogantly above the law is to make a mockery of every legal immigrant's efforts, and a travesty of the American legal system. [/OPINION]
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

19th July 2010, 12:44 PM	#2
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	You know , let's say a different organization was doing this let's say macdonalds was found to be harboring illegal aliens. How many people would protest and stop eating there? Yet it is perfectly okay when the church does it. You know i can empathize with the person's plight, but that does not change the fact that the church is doing something illegal. Something that any other organization that tried would be hung out to dry for.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

19th July 2010, 12:49 PM	#3
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,039	I don't know much about the details of this case, but there actually is one legally valid alternative for immigrants which is the Religious VISA. I'm not sure if this applies in this particular case.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

19th July 2010, 01:04 PM	#4
Goshawk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA Posts: 1,453	Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing that prevents the INS from simply walking in there and deporting them. The web page you linked to says: Quote: They woudn't be entirely safe from the authorities. But they would be spiritually safe. Found this: http://www.ww4report.com/node/2356 Quote: ICE spokesperson Tim Counts said agents have the authority to go into a church or anywhere else to make an arrest. AFAIK there is no legal principle of "sanctuary" in America. What's holding the INS back is the potential for a public relations disaster, not any legal considerations of "sanctuary". So you can put some of your sense of outrage back in the box. She's not protected from anything, she's just squatting in the church until the INS feels like dealing with her. Or until she leaves the church, and they grab her. That's what happened to this woman. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4OQQ80 So this church isn't "flouting the law" by granting her anything special or unusual, any more than a Mcdonalds would be "flouting the law" by allowing her to live in their employees breakroom. Do you think the McDonalds should kick her out into the street? What if the McD's manager feels sorry for her? Is it illegal for the McD's to allow her to live in their breakroom? Is it the responsibility of the McD's manager to hand her over to the INS? ETA: Yup, I thought so. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s126.htm Quote: SANCTUARY A place of refuge, where the process of the law cannot be executed. Sanctuaries may be divided into religious and civil. The former were very common in Europe; religious houses affording protection from arrest to all persons, whether accused of crime, or pursued for debt. This kind was never known in the United States. Civil sanctuary, or that protection which is afforded to a man by his own house, was always respected in this country. The house protects the owner from the service of all civil process in the first instance but not if he is once lawfully arrested and takes refuge in his own house. No place affords protection from arrest in criminal cases; a man may, therefore, be arrested in his own bouse in such cases, and the doors may be broken for the purpose of making the arrest. There is no legal principle of sanctuary in the U.S., so the church isn't "flouting the law", because it's not protecting or shielding her from the law at all; the law can go in there any time it wants and carry out her deportation.
	Last edited by Goshawk; 19th July 2010 at 01:16 PM.

19th July 2010, 01:18 PM	#5
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by Goshawk Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing that prevents the INS from simply walking in there and deporting them. The web page you linked to says: Found this: http://www.ww4report.com/node/2356 AFAIK there is no legal principle of "sanctuary" in America. What's holding the INS back is the potential for a public relations disaster, not any legal considerations of "sanctuary". So you can put some of your sense of outrage back in the box. She's not protected from anything, she's just squatting in the church until the INS feels like dealing with her. Or until she leaves the church, and they grab her. That's what happened to this woman. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4OQQ80 So this church isn't "flouting the law" by granting her anything special or unusual, any more than a Mcdonalds would be "flouting the law" by allowing her to live in their employees breakroom. Do you think the McDonalds should kick her out into the street? What if the McD's manager feels sorry for her? Is it illegal for the McD's to allow her to live in their breakroom? Is it the responsibility of the McD's manager to hand her over to the INS? As a matter of fact most places do have laws that require one to report something illegal. Sure it is not really possible to enforce that much, but in a case like this, where it is, indeed the church and in the hypothetical MCdonalds do have a responsibility to inform the authorities. I can understand it sucks for the person. And i can see where someone would feel sorry for them, but this is not about the person, this is about an organization promoting ignoring the law. Sympathy is no excuse for ignoring the law. I may feel sorry for a heroin addict friend of mine, but once i start letting them shoot up in my house a line is crossed. There are legitimate ways to get into the country ways that my grandparents had to go through. Why should others not have to follow this?
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

19th July 2010, 01:21 PM	#6
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by Goshawk So this church isn't "flouting the law" by granting her anything special or unusual... The church is flouting the law by not only breaking the law, but documenting and advertising their criminal activities in the process. Originally Posted by Goshawk ... any more than a McDonald's would be "flouting the law" by allowing her to live in their employees breakroom... It's illegal to harbor or employ illegal immigrants, no matter where it occurs. Originally Posted by Goshawk Do you think the McDonald's should kick her out into the street? Yes. Originally Posted by Goshawk What if the McD's manager feels sorry for her? That is an irrelevant appeal -- a Non Sequitur, at the very least. I feel sorry for Lindsey Lohan, but I'm not going to ask her or any other convicted criminal to live in my home. Originally Posted by Goshawk Is it illegal for the McD's to allow her to live in their breakroom? Yes. Originally Posted by Goshawk Is it the responsibility of the McD's manager to hand her over to the INS? Yes. Otherwise, it's Aiding and Abetting a Criminal, Being an Accessory Before and During the Commission of a Crime, et cetera... I've already reported this crime to the authorities, but as you pointed out, it would be a PR disaster for the the government to serve and execute an arrest warrant on all involved persons... ... and a field day for the liberal media.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

19th July 2010, 01:25 PM	#7
Goshawk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA Posts: 1,453	Originally Posted by sadhatter There are legitimate ways to get into the country ways that my grandparents had to go through. Why should others not have to follow this? Because it's considerably more difficult nowadays than it was for your grandparents? Not excusing, just explaining. Look at this. http://reason.org/files/a87d15508538...458f116079.pdf

19th July 2010, 01:39 PM	#8
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by Goshawk Because it's considerably more difficult nowadays than it was for your grandparents? Not excusing, just explaining. Look at this. http://reason.org/files/a87d15508538...458f116079.pdf It took less than 18 months for my wife to obtain her citizenship, from downloading the application to the swearing-in.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

19th July 2010, 02:07 PM	#9
SonOfLaertes Muse Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: The Area 51 Motel 6 Room 12 Bed 2 Pillow1 Posts: 781	The "documentary" here is the part that irks me. They are undoubtedly intending to use it as a tool to humiliate and vilify the INS agents who are eventually sent to do their job. I'm quite sure the role of victim will be played to the hilt during the arrest, with much crying and wailing. I must say that I'm on the fence over the issue of immigration in this country, but then I don't live in a border state. The issue is complex. Something like this, however - using a church to frame a situation in a certain way, with the intent on vilifying law enforcement personnel - this sort of thing would push me away from sympathy for illegal immigrants quickly. These stunads need to back away from using their church as a political tool before they get what they wish for - publicity.
	__________________ Best concise summary of Intelligent Design's never-changing key argument: “ the improbability of assembly of functional sequence all at once from scratch by brute chance” (Nick Matske, Panda's Thumb).

19th July 2010, 02:19 PM	#10
SonOfLaertes Muse Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: The Area 51 Motel 6 Room 12 Bed 2 Pillow1 Posts: 781	Originally Posted by Goshawk .... There is no legal principle of sanctuary in the U.S., so the church isn't "flouting the law", because it's not protecting or shielding her from the law at all; the law can go in there any time it wants and carry out her deportation. Incorrect. The church is flouting its status as a sanctuary. There may be no real laws preventing the INS from going in and making an arrest, but there is an undeniable tradition in this country to treat churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. with special care. Their tax-free status is predicated on lack of involvement in such issues. The perpetrators of this situation know this and are playing on that status. Do you actually believe these people are doing other churches a favor by angering the anti-immigration legions?
	__________________ Best concise summary of Intelligent Design's never-changing key argument: “ the improbability of assembly of functional sequence all at once from scratch by brute chance” (Nick Matske, Panda's Thumb).

19th July 2010, 02:24 PM	#11
SOdhner Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by Goshawk There is no legal principle of sanctuary in the U.S., so the church isn't "flouting the law", because it's not protecting or shielding her from the law at all; the law can go in there any time it wants and carry out her deportation. I'd actually say it wouldn't be flouting the law if the sanctuary meant something because in that case it would simply be making use of a legal right. The fact that "sanctuary" is meaningless in this case might make this come off as worse, more brazen, because they're dancing around making a show of it. I'm fairly lenient on the immigration issue personally, but I recognize that being lenient isn't a useful position. I know I think there are problems with the current system - strictly following the law isn't really possible in some cases due to the scope of the problem, and just ignoring the laws doesn't help either. If I were a better person I would be working to change the laws, but... meh. Sometimes stunts like this can be done with that in mind - they want to draw attention as a way of getting their view out. Knowing very little about this specific case, I don't get the feeling that they're doing a good job of it and they should have taken a different approach.
SOdhner Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 837

19th July 2010, 03:27 PM	#12
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by SOdhner ... If I were a better person I would be working to change the laws, but... meh. Sometimes stunts like this can be done with that in mind - they want to draw attention as a way of getting their view out. Knowing very little about this specific case, I don't get the feeling that they're doing a good job of it and they should have taken a different approach. I think that if all the emotional appeals and irrelevant facts were removed from the documentary, not only would it be considerable shorter, but the case would likely go against the illegal immigrant, the producers, and the church as well. It seems to be all one big appeal to emotion, disguised as a documentary, and for the sole purpose of embarrassing the powers-that-be into making the immigration laws more lenient. In 2008, the Proposition 8 proponents made a similar mistake in presenting their case as a largely emotional one. Voters that had used "facts and reason" () to make up their minds weren't swayed to change their votes in favor of the measure.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

20th July 2010, 10:27 AM	#13
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,019	Originally Posted by SonOfLaertes Incorrect. The church is flouting its status as a sanctuary. There may be no real laws preventing the INS from going in and making an arrest, but there is an undeniable tradition in this country to treat churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. with special care. Their tax-free status is predicated on lack of involvement in such issues. The perpetrators of this situation know this and are playing on that status. Do you actually believe these people are doing other churches a favor by angering the anti-immigration legions? I see no connection between the sanctuary tradition and the tax-free status of religious institutions (which depends on staying out of elective politics, not staying out of all public policy activism). I say this especially in light of the fact that sanctuary is merely tradition, and not legal standing. Look at it this way: Is the government agency responsible here (ICE) saying, can't go there, it's a tax-exempt church, or is it can't go there, it's a church?
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

20th July 2010, 05:26 PM	#14
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	More like, "Let's wait until after the fall elections to go in there", in my opinion. FOX News has not covered this issue. The Minuteman Project has not done anything about it, either. I think that whoever does go in there will have to first prepare themselves for a huge political backlash from Lefties, Churchies, and Immigrant Rights groups. Imagine ... left-wing liberals teaming up with right-wing religionists to protect a semi-literate, unemployed, illegal immigrant from being sent back to where she came from.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

20th July 2010, 06:55 PM	#15
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,019	Originally Posted by Fnord .. Imagine ... left-wing liberals teaming up with right-wing religionists... I don't know where right-wing religionists come into it on the same side of left-wing liberals. Have you checked in with Pastor Hagee lately? Quote: I want those of you in the State Department and in government in Washington to hear this: if America does not stop pressuring Israel to give up land, I believe that God will bring this nation into judgment, because I believe what this book says. And if God brings this nation into judgment, He will very likely release the terrorists that you’ve already let get here through the ridiculous immigration policy you refuse to stop, and this nation is going to go through a bloodbath that you have permitted because of what you have done. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/7...holic_anti_gay Got that? Our immigration policy is God's gateway for sending in terrorists. That's some old-time religion for ya. Originally Posted by Fnord ... to protect a semi-literate, unemployed, illegal immigrant from being sent back to where she came from. You, on the other hand, are a veritable font of Christian charity.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

20th July 2010, 07:05 PM	#16
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Fnord a semi-literate, unemployed, illegal immigrant from being sent back to where she came from. What's funny to me is the number of semi-literate, unemployed legal Americans who consider themselves too good to pick crops in this heat, but damned well expect someone to do it.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

20th July 2010, 07:25 PM	#17
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Fnord It took less than 18 months for my wife to obtain her citizenship, from downloading the application to the swearing-in. but how long did it take to get to legal resident?

20th July 2010, 07:36 PM	#18
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	Originally Posted by Fnord It took less than 18 months for my wife to obtain her citizenship, from downloading the application to the swearing-in. I think you missed the point of goshawk's post. Did you notice the little guy at the bottom of the linked poster? Unskilled means outtaluck. As you've written, the woman you want deported is unskilled so breaking the law is the only way she can stay in the country. Your wife's acquisition of citizenship in 18 months was done under very unusual circumstances. Why are you pretending that it's that easy for everyone? I would venture a guess that most women would not want to be married to you for three years before applying for citizenship. Did Sanctuary Woman refuse your advances? Is that why you're fixated? Originally Posted by Fnord FOX News has not covered this issue. The Minuteman Project has not done anything about it, either. I think that whoever does go in there will have to first prepare themselves for a huge political backlash from Lefties, Churchies, and Immigrant Rights groups. Maybe nobody cares! That's a real possibility! I know I don't. Quote: Imagine ... left-wing liberals teaming up with right-wing religionists to protect a semi-literate, unemployed, illegal immigrant from being sent back to where she came from. Maybe she's bothering fewer people than you are. Why don't you go back where you came from?

20th July 2010, 07:38 PM	#19
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	Originally Posted by MG1962 but how long did it take to get to legal resident? He's misrepresenting her case. She was married to him for at least three years before applying. He's a US citizen. I provided a link in my earlier post.

21st July 2010, 06:33 AM	#20
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Slimething He's misrepresenting her case. She was married to him for at least three years before applying. He's a US citizen. I provided a link in my earlier post. Thats why I asked what I did - I am a legal resident in the US - 18 months from filing the application to getting my green card. Not including lost wages, it directly cost about $4000.00 to do it Going through the process gave me a different perspective on the whole immigration debate. We are all citizens of a nation through pure accidents of birth. Some of us strike it lucky and grow up in stable wealthy nations. Some get to call North Korea or Zimbawa home. The reality is, we are nothing special when it comes to where is home. It was a case our parents decided to have a romantic momment, and nothing else

21st July 2010, 12:20 PM	#21
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by hgc ... You, on the other hand, are a veritable font of Christian charity. You're joking, right? "Christian Charity" in this context seems to mean, "Break the law in such a way that anyone enforcing the law gains the reputation as a jack-booted thug of the Great Atheist Conspiracy."
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

21st July 2010, 12:28 PM	#22
KodeBlue Scholar Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: usa Posts: 78	Issues of "sanctuary" aside, aren't they violating housing and zoning laws? If there is achild living there why hasn't child protective services investigating to make sure it is a safe and healthy living environment for a child?

21st July 2010, 12:44 PM	#23
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by slingblade What's funny to me is the number of semi-literate, unemployed legal Americans who consider themselves too good to pick crops in this heat, but damned well expect someone to do it. So a-holes are a-holes, film at 11. Yes there are lazy americans, does that mean that suddenly the law does not apply? Or was there another relevant point that i was missing?
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

21st July 2010, 12:44 PM	#24
epeos76 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 301	Assuming the church is flouting the law I imagine its because they believe it's an unjust law. It's an act of civil disobedience - a political tradition with fine justification in secular philosophy. It would be really troubling if the church had some special legal status in this respect, but as Goshawk pointed out, it doesn't - they are open to the same consequences as anyone else if the government has the attention and nerve to impose them. I'm not sure why you're so outraged. Is it because the church is putting itself forward as a moral leader? But presumably McDonald's could do this, too. It's likely people would scoff, because deservedly or not, they don't have the same reputation, but presumably if McD's management was sincere, being scoffed at is one of the risks they would be prepared to endure to do what they thought was right.
epeos76 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 301

21st July 2010, 12:54 PM	#25
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,019	Originally Posted by Fnord You're joking, right? Yes, I was joking - or more specifically, being sarcastic about your bubbling bile over this particular illegal immigrant (semi-literate, unemployed). Quote: "Christian Charity" in this context seems to mean, "Break the law in such a way that anyone enforcing the law gains the reputation as a jack-booted thug of the Great Atheist Conspiracy." This is just plain weird. You keep going on like there is a right-wing element to this church's activism. You must assume that all religious people are righties, or something. Absent evidence, I refuse to believe that this church is doing this to do paint the authorities who eventually take this woman into custody as atheist conspirators.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

21st July 2010, 12:58 PM	#26
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,019	Originally Posted by Fnord The church is flouting the law by not only breaking the law, but documenting and advertising their criminal activities in the process. What law are they breaking? Be specific.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

21st July 2010, 01:01 PM	#27
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by epeos76 Assuming the church is flouting the law I imagine its because they believe it's an unjust law. It's an act of civil disobedience - a political tradition with fine justification in secular philosophy. It would be really troubling if the church had some special legal status in this respect, but as Goshawk pointed out, it doesn't - they are open to the same consequences as anyone else if the government has the attention and nerve to impose them. I'm not sure why you're so outraged. Is it because the church is putting itself forward as a moral leader? But presumably McDonald's could do this, too. It's likely people would scoff, because deservedly or not, they don't have the same reputation, but presumably if McD's management was sincere, being scoffed at is one of the risks they would be prepared to endure to do what they thought was right. Think of it this way. I disobey certain laws, i am sure to a greater or lesser extent we all do. But if i were to make a movie that went like this....... " Hello viewers, today we are going to do some illegal ****, that is right, we are going to break laws, and tape it. First we are going to smoke a half pound of dope, then we are going to download some music illegally, then we are going to help 12 lucky illegal immigrants into the country...." I would be arrested in short order, yet the church due to its political influence can openly make a documentary about breaking the law and feel no repercussions. That is the problem, whether you agree with this particular situation or not, the church is not only breaking the law, but taping it and getting nothing done at all. If i can't do it, they can't do it.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

21st July 2010, 03:57 PM	#28
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by hgc What law are they breaking? Be specific. Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) "Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A): A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he: * assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or * encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or * knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions. Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The above was taken from a website promoting immigration reform.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

21st July 2010, 04:10 PM	#29
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by epeos76 Assuming the church is flouting the law... Which they are. Originally Posted by epeos76 I imagine its because they believe it's an unjust law. It's an act of civil disobedience - a political tradition with fine justification in secular philosophy. It would be really troubling if the church had some special legal status in this respect, but as Goshawk pointed out, it doesn't - they are open to the same consequences as anyone else if the government has the attention and nerve to impose them. Exactly. Because Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, there is no law on the books granting priviledge to any religious organization to place itself above the law. Originally Posted by epeos76 I'm not sure why you're so outraged. 1. A church is violating at least one law - a federal immigration law. No religious institution is above the law; at least, not in America. 2. Three of the elders of that church are documenting their illegal activities and presenting their video documentary for free access on the web - this is where the law is being flouted. 3. At the beginning of their video, a homeless camp can be clearly seen across the alley from the church. If they're acting out of compassion (as they claim), then I wonder why they prefer to commit an illegal act in the harboring of an illegal alien when their neighborhood is a camping ground for homeless American citizens. 4. The producers are trying to elicit support from other church organizations, using appeals to emotion and other coercive language.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

21st July 2010, 07:48 PM	#30
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	Originally Posted by MG1962 Thats why I asked what I did - I am a legal resident in the US - 18 months from filing the application to getting my green card. Not including lost wages, it directly cost about $4000.00 to do it Going through the process gave me a different perspective on the whole immigration debate. We are all citizens of a nation through pure accidents of birth. Some of us strike it lucky and grow up in stable wealthy nations. Some get to call North Korea or Zimbawa home. The reality is, we are nothing special when it comes to where is home. It was a case our parents decided to have a romantic momment, and nothing else Congratulations on getting your green card! My family went through the process and it took us roughly eight years to jump all the hurdles. Tough times. That's why I don't appreciate this instance of mean-spirited misrepresentation of a very difficult process. If Fnord knew anything about the naturalization procedure, he'd realize that applicants are in the maws of a Federal agency that basically does what it wants with them because they can't vote. Doesn't seem like he does, though. He's still going on about this woman.

22nd July 2010, 08:10 AM	#31
epeos76 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 301	Betcha a dollar the church does spend a big chunk of its mission budget helping homeless Americans. In any case, intentionally, openly, and peacefully refusing to comply with a law that the church deems deeply unjust isn't enough to justify outrage for me. It's easy to imagine clear cut cases where that would be an act of heroic moral leadership e.g. refusing to comply with the fugitive slave act. There are certainly a lot of progressives today who feel U.S. immigration law is patently unjust, especially after revelations about the conditions under which suspected illegal immigrants can be detained and the inadequacy of the hearings. Even assuming you think the law is basically just, it's still pretty unproblematic because the church is acting openly and peacefully and isn't asking for any special treatment with respect to the consequences. Assuming the law is just then they're courageous moral idiots, but not hypocrits or threats to civil society. It seems to me the you're rejecting the idea that the church can practice civil disobedience at all. Of course, I may be completely wrong. Maybe there is something special about what they are doing, or about U.S. immigration law?
epeos76 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 301