Posted on 04/14/2006 2:35:21 PM PDT by Racehorse
San Antonio Archbishop José Gomez says he'll adhere to his faith and break the law if a congressional proposal criminalizing humanitarian assistance to undocumented immigrants prevails, though he'd consult with fellow Texas bishops before asking subordinates to follow his lead.
[. . .]
The archbishop, himself an immigrant from Monterrey, Mexico, told the Express-News Tuesday that "if they push us to that point, we'll have to choose (between faith and the law). It's a non-negotiable principle of our faith that we must welcome the immigrant and practice charity."
Referring to a bill passed by the House in December, which includes a provision that would make felons of undocumented immigrants and criminals of people who assist them, Gomez said: "'Love thy neighbor' is the very essence of the Christian faith, and (the bill) asks us to violate it."
[. . .]
Gomez, the spiritual leader of nearly 1 million Catholics in San Antonio and South Texas, was emphatic about being forced into a corner.
"If they tell me I can't practice my religion, I'll break the law," he said.
[. . .]
Under current law, it is a felony for any person who "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter or reside in the United States."
The key difference is the "assist" clause, which has caused an uproar among religious leaders because it suggests humanitarian efforts would be criminalized.
(Excerpt) Read more at mysanantonio.com ...
First of all, no bill will be passed that will cause this bishop to do what he has threatened to do.
Second, don't be so sure RICO could be used. The Supreme Court ruled recently that RICO can't be used against abortion protesters, so the Supremes seem to be signalling that RICO is not some huge club that can be used arbitrarily outside its intended target: organized crime.
From the link provided in previous post:
"6 SEC. 202. ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 274 of the Immigration
8 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324) is amended to read
9 as follows:
10 ``ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES
11 ``SEC. 274. (a) CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND PEN-
12 ALTIES.--
13 ``(1) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.--Whoever--
14 ``(A) assists, encourages, directs, or in-
15 duces a person to come to or enter the United
16 States, or to attempt to come to or enter the
17 United States, knowing or in reckless disregard
18 of the fact that such person is an alien who
19 lacks lawful authority to come to or enter the
20 United States;
21 ``(B) assists, encourages, directs, or in-
22 duces a person to come to or enter the United
23 States at a place other than a designated port
24 of entry or place other than as designated by
25 the Secretary of Homeland Security, regardless
26 of whether such person has official permission
HR 4437 EH 34
1 or lawful authority to be in the United States,
2 knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact
3 that such person is an alien;
4 ``(C) assists, encourages, directs, or in-
5 duces a person to reside in or remain in the
6 United States, or to attempt to reside in or re-
7 main in the United States, knowing or in reck-
8 less disregard of the fact that such person is an
9 alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or
10 remain in the United States;
11 ``(D) transports or moves a person in the
12 United States, knowing or in reckless disregard
13 of the fact that such person is an alien who
14 lacks lawful authority to enter or be in the
15 United States, where the transportation or
16 movement will aid or further in any manner the
17 person's illegal entry into or illegal presence in
18 the United States;
19 ``(E) harbors, conceals, or shields from de-
20 tection a person in the United States knowing
21 or in reckless disregard of the fact that such
22 person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to
23 be in the United States;"
Sorry for the formatting issues. Wanted to post verbatim from the text.
What would you change to make this less ambiguous? Please keep in mind that any loopholes could just as easily be used by Moslem Fundamentalist groups to shield a potential terrorist from arrest or deportation.
Fine, it was bigotry. But this time, if the Catholic Church advocates the violation of US laws, people will have enough reason to dislike it even without bigotry.
Dear Young Scholar,
It was once illegal to knowingly assist a runaway slave. Who was obligated to obey that unjust law?
Would bigotry be justified against those who refused to obey that law?
sitetest
Ah. . .so what you're telling me is, like the Democrats, the Princes of the Church are above the law ??
Nice. . .
Sure it is an absolute right. That doesn't mean you can't be charged on other things: inciting to riot, malicious negligence, etc.
What part of "Congress shall make no law. . ." isn't absolute ???
Obviously, if a law really is immoral, Christians should violate it regardless of the consequences. If, on the other hand, the law is reasonable, citizens have a valid reason for opposing any organization that encourages members to ignore it.
EXACTLY.
Whats your opinion of Catholics? Be honest.
Game.Set.Match. So obvious a counter point it's brilliant. Chirp..chirp..the sounds of Gomez defenders!
Can you give the CFR code citation of the violation?
Dear Young Scholar,
"No, but it would have been reasonable to people choosing to violate that law to accept the consequences of violating it."
Perhaps Congress will pass a law making it illegal to give material aid of any sort to illegal immigrants. Or perhaps the rather vague wording of the current proposed bill will be interpreted by some overzealous ass in some prosecutor's office.
And perhaps a Catholic bishop or priest will be arrested and prosecuting for feeding an illegal immigrant.
If that happens, I'm sure that our bishops and priests will accept the legal consequences, no matter how unjust those consequences might be.
However, even if these people accept those consequences, it will not mitigate the sins of those who impose the consequences on them.
"If, on the other hand, the law is reasonable, citizens have a valid reason for opposing any organization that encourages members to ignore it."
You may believe it is reasonable to imprison those who feed the hungry because they are "illegal," but the bishops, priests, and many Catholic laity may disagree with you. There were plenty of people who thought it was reasonable to bring to "justice" those who assisted runaway slaves (that's why such a law was passed in the first place), but some disagreed.
Many (most?) folks in the South were just fine and dandy with keeping black folks from eating in their restaurants and drinking from their water fountains. Others disagreed, and broke those laws.
That those who violate evil laws will often accept evil in payment for their good hardly is a justification for the evildoers who harm them.
sitetest
For starters, how about the Durbin amendment that would help ensure that charitable organizations and local churches would NOT be prosecuted for providing humanitarian assistance to an undocumented immigrant? Durbin's amendment was approved in a bipartisan vote of 10 to 7.
“Charitable organizations, like individuals, should be able to provide humanitarian assistance to immigrants without fearing prosecution,” said Durbin. “A domestic violence shelter should not be forced to decide whether the government would regard a situation as 'an emergency' before they protect a battered mother and her children. A non-profit hospital should not be required to provide medical care without compensation in order to avoid criminal prosecution. We should protect the institutions and individuals who make it their life’s work to help those in need.”
In recent months, churches, charities and community organizations in Illinois and across the country have expressed serious concern over language in immigration legislation being considered by the Senate that could criminalize their assistance to those in need. Current legislative proposals could make an organization guilty of alien smuggling, an aggravated felony, if they helped an individual in need before verifying whether the person is a legal immigrant.
Durbin said that while the original bill included an exception for humanitarian assistance, the exception only protected individuals, not organizations, like churches, hospitals, or schools. Furthermore, the exception only applied to aid provided in emergency situations and aid given without compensation.
Durbin’s amendment expands the humanitarian exception to cover organizations. It makes it clear that humanitarian assistance would include housing, counseling, and victim services. And it strikes the provisions that limit the humanitarian assistance exception to emergency situations and to assistance that is rendered without compensation.
“We need to protect the right of innocent Americans who carry on our nation’s long-standing tradition of welcoming and caring for the needy,” said Durbin. “Today, with the help of my Senate colleagues, we have helped ensure that the tradition of a caring nation continues.”
http://www.senate.gov/~durbin/record.cfm?id=253158
What frustrates is the outraged expressed by these Bishops about illegal immigration but you never hear them raise their voices to all of the Pro Abortion Catholic Politicians!
Incorrect. As I previously posted, the Church teaches that one must follow the law. Select bishops are stating their intentions to not follow the law. Big difference.
No it isn't. You'd be laughed out of court claiming that it is.
As I recall, some WERE threatening to deny Communion to John Kerry (others, I admit, told Kerry to "come on down!").
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.