A law prohibiting a charity from using its own money to help the needy that come its way, who are not otherwise criminal in any sense that is malum in se, seems vaguely unconstitutional to me. Perhaps I misunderstand the bill the House passed. It seems quite bizarre and insane if Mahony's characterization is correct.
It would not be vaguely unconstitutional, it would be completely so.
The Church is a private organization, imagine if there was a law that said you cannot invide friends over to your house unless you first asked for their papers to ensure they're legal.
Mahony is playing to his audience. He goes along with the U.S. Catholic Bishops who want amnesty for illegals and a guest worker program.
The following is from the Whittier Daily News:
Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly and a West Covina Unified School District trustee, said the bill in question would apply only to money that churches or social organizations receive from the federal government.
"Taxpayer money should go to those who are here legally, and not used as a resource to encourage people to break the law," Spence said.
As for Mahony's comments, Spence said they were "fine - and then we should ignore sending him taxpayer money for the services that he provides. He can ignore it but we don't have to give him the money."
Jackie Kolnick, a board member for the Whittier Area Interfaith Council, said the strings associated with federal money is the reason the council doesn't seek those funds.
"I've always felt that the way to overcome government restrictions is to not use their money," said Kolnick, who runs the council's Cold Weather Shelter. "There's just no way we could pay for the extra staff or guards to do that kind of screening, so we scrimp and save to get what we have.
"I don't know what the answer to the immigration issue is," she added, "but I think that if you really want to help, you'll find other ways to help."
[snip]