We Want Yellow!
Donate Today Monthly if Possible
Posted on 08/10/2011 7:51:09 PM PDT by xzins
Alabama church leaders,..., Episcopal Bishop Henry N. Parsley, Roman Catholic Bishop Robert Baker and United Methodist Bishop William H. Willimon filed suit Monday, Aug. 1,2011, to stop enforcement of Alabama's immigration law.
Leaders of the Episcopal, Methodist and Roman Catholic churches in Alabama filed a federal lawsuit this morning to stop enforcement of the state's new immigration law, which they say could strike at the core of their ability to worship.
The lawsuit was filed by: the Rt. Rev. Henry N. Parsley Jr., bishop of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Alabama; Rev. William H. Willimon, bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church; and the Most Rev. Thomas J. Rodi, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Mobile; and the Most Rev. Robert J. Baker, Roman Catholic Bishop of Birmingham.
According to the lawsuit, "the bishops have reason to fear that administering of religious sacraments, which are central to the Christian faith, to known undocumented persons may be criminalized under this law."
The new law is set to go into effect Sept. 1.
The lawsuit names Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange and Madison County District Attorney Robert L. Broussard as defendants in the civil lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for northern Alabama.
"Motivated by God's mandate that the faithful are humbly bound to welcome and care for all people, the leaders of the Episcopal, Methodist and Roman Catholic Churches of Alabama respectfully request this Court to stop the enforcement of Alabama's Anti-Immigration Law," the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit states that it seeks to prevent "irreparable harm" to the 338,000 members of the three churches in Alabama. It calls Alabama's new law "the nation's most merciless anti-immigration legislation."
"If enforced, Alabama's Anti-Immigration Law will make it a crime to follow God's command to be Good Samaritans," according to the lawsuit.
The law, if enforced, will place Alabama church members in the "untenable position of verifying individuals' immigration documentation" before being able to provide things such as food clothing, shelter and transportation to those in need, according to the lawsuit.
Among the lawsuit's other claims are that the new law violates:
- The First Amendment rights of its members.
- Rights of Alabama residents to freely assemble "and welcome all people to the altar."
- The ability of the chuches to freely contract through the management of denominational thrift stores and church day cares and the performance of marriages, baptisms, and counseling services.
You gots’ to be a foreigner to need a visa!
Yeah but the point is aside from delegations, they don’t assign visas to a state.
Look, just because something isn't done doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it never was that way.
Lots of things can be done. We might even be able to IMPORT SUCH PERSONS ~ I don't see that the 13/14/15 th Amendments eliminated that particular clause.
The necessary implication is that we would be able to EXPORT SUCH PERSONS as well.!
You're probably right - sounds like an attempt to throw another lawsuit out there and hope one of them sticks
Ludicrous. Does it require the priest to say "Say 10 Hail Mary's and 5 Our Father's and show me your birth certificate"?
I was at mass a while back and during the sermon the visiting priest asked us all to support amnesty. I asked my (ex) lady at the time what the hell this speech has to do with a Mass service? She agreed (one of the few times I was "right" about something in her eyes, lol).
Our bishops need to learn quickly that social justice and democrat politics damage the church far more than anything else has done. Save the social justice for charity and volunteer work (as I do), not liberal legislation.
Illegal aliens is a criminal matter and should have 50 different State standards throughout the U.S.A. - that is the intent and purpose of having 50 different States - so that different things can be tried.
When one State makes it hard for illegal aliens to find work, drive, or otherwise reside within one State - they will flock to another State - and we will all see which State benefits and which State goes further down the tube.
The utter failure of the Federal government to live up to their obligation doesn’t mean that the States need to also not live up to their obligations.
The question isn’t what, “the state can do”, but rather, “what is the constitutional role of the state with respect to immigration and naturalization”.
This is a federal matter, so ultimately deportation and incarceration rests with the feds. That’s constitutionally, their jurisdiction.
Having 50 state standards destroys the entire purpose of a visa, and that’s why I’m arguing it’s the worst argument possible. Now, you’ve given CA a blank check to hand out legal immigration vouchers for all who want them. Vouchers that would be good anywhere in the Union.
The Feds need to step up and enforce the law as it stands, otherwise, it’s worse than no law at all.
Prior to 1917 and the great conservative Woodrow Wilson, there were no immigration restrictions.
There also wasn’t any welfare. Why are conservatives arguing in favor of quotas and against the elimination of welfare benefits?
As for Amnesty, I agree with you that it would be the wrong thing to do without serious overhaul of the entitlement structure. If the spending were cut completely, and the only people who came were capable of supporting themselves and working, then I wouldn’t have a problem with them coming to America.
The problem is that too many ride the gravy train.
I am not saying the State can say who can immigrate by themselves or that they can naturalize citizens by themselves - that is clearly a Federal role.
But they can and should enforce standards for checking eligibility for employment - drivers licenses - law breaking - housing - etc, etc.
CA is ignoring both State and Federal law already. They are a “sanctuary” State. That is their path. Let Arizona and Alabama find a their own path.
That is what having State governments is all about. And that sort of thing IS their jurisdiction.
The failure of the Federal government to live up to their obligations doesn’t mean that the States should fail to live up to their own.
Couple of questions here.
One, what’s the constitutionality of requiring social security numbers to be used for employment? That wasn’t the purpose of their introduction.
From what I can see, there’s zero requirement for any employer in the US to be required to solicit the SSN for employment. However, the employer can ask and should conduct their own background checks.
If the employer is the state, by all means. Have the state require the use of an SSN is a decision that each state can make. The state doesn’t have the authority to require all businesses that operate with the state to do the same.
Driver’s licenses. Agreed. Law breaking. Yes, of course, but then we get to the question as to what constitutes the laws of the state? There are many laws which citizens break inadvertantly, should these be treated the same as other laws which are considered more serious?
Housing, I disagree. Housing isn’t a federal or a state role. Housing is, at least last I checked a market based industry. If an owner wishes to rent without checking ID, then that should be an option for them. Would that be a wise decision? No. But the government has no role overseeing all private transactions.
Employees have to file withholdings to the State - the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that these witholdings are for actual citizens and legal residents within that State.
There are numerous laws, State and otherwise, on housing. Ensuring that landlords only rent to those who reside within a State legally - and that they do not rent to someone who houses a mob far in excess of reasonable capacity - as illegal alien apartments so often do - is a valid State role.
States have a right and a role under the Constitution to any number of powers that can and should be used to discourage illegal residency within their State and enforce such laws. That does not at all amend or abridge the Federal role (that they have failed at) in determining immigration and naturalization.
So you are OK with “sanctuary” but not with enforcement?
Does making your State or City a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens also abrogate the Federal Constitutional role, in your view?
Agree very much with driver’s licenses. No question there.
As for withholdings the state actually doesn’t have a compelling interest to crack down here because the tax is taken right out of the paycheck.
If the state were restored to it’s constitutional role in having the individual pay his or her own taxes, then it would have an incentive to crack down on illegal immigration.
Right now the state uses the businesses as tax collectors, which is part of why the system is in trouble.
“Ensuring that landlords only rent to those who reside within a State legally”
Where does it say that a state has a right to regulate private contractors? If the landlord owns the property, then it’s his right to disburse as he sees fit. The state has no role in regulating between someone using his private property and the tenent.
“that they do not rent to someone who houses a mob far in excess of reasonable capacity - as illegal alien apartments so often do - is a valid State role.”
Agreed. This is a safety issue. But provided that the landlord abides by the regulations on his property wrt housing, I really cannot see where the state has justification to intervene between a private transaction.
“So you are OK with “sanctuary” but not with enforcement?”
I’m fine with enforcement provided that it doesn’t abrogate the rights of individual citizens in the process.
“Does making your State or City a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens also abrogate the Federal Constitutional role, in your view?”
Absolutely not. States can’t pick and choose which parts of the constitution that they follow, and neither can cities defy the law.
The way to look at it is like this. The Fed has a role in defending the nation from external enemies. If they drop the ball, to what extent does the state have to regulate itself? I understand the frustration that is going on here with Obama and co, but these bills aren’t the solution. The solution is to dump Obama in 2012 and restore sanity.
States have a huge role in regulating the renting leasing and residence of all property - just as they have a role in regulating all public commerce - to ensure safety, legality, truth in advertising, collection of sales tax, occupancy regulations, etc, etc.
People do not have a “right” to hire illegal labor, to rent to illegal aliens, to withhold State payments for the wrong person or a non-person, etc, etc.
“Sanity” has been to not enforce the law under both GOP and DEM administrations and Congressional control. There is no “sanity” to return to. The GOP is not our friend on this. The INS is not our friend on this. The Constitution, however, is our friend.
All powers not given to the Fed - and that is a lot of them - are reserved for the people and the States.
You apparently don't see much of a role for the State.
I do.
So does the Constitution.
“Self interest is a piss poor excuse for not enforcing the law.”
The way the system works, they don’t care because they get their money by making the employer pay. If they actually had to collect, it would make a difference.
“States have a huge role in regulating the renting leasing and residence of all property”
Then private property does not exist in America. If I can not rent my place to whomever I want, then my property isn’t really privately owned, is it? States have no right to bar private commerce.
The State has the power, under the Constitution, to regulate such things as it and the citizens who elect it see fit.
If the residents of a State want to pass a law that you cannot rent to someone without them providing proof of legal residence that is not an abrogation of private property nor against the Constitution.
States ban and regulate private commerce all the time. Try selling raw milk. Try opening a business without a license. Try to put up a sign on your business saying “no ________ allowed”.
Try reading the 10th Amendment again and then come back and tell me that the States have no such power under the Constitution.
I’ve done all of those things. I have bought raw milk and drank it. I’m a farmboy and we do all kinds of things that would make the government keel over if they knew about them all. I’ve operated a business without a license and done quite well for myself. Kept myself busy and paid all my bills.
I’ve rented numerous places from friends and family and other folks without ever getting the goobment involved. That to me is real freedom.
As a business owner and operator, I don’t have to solicit or accept any business that I do not want. There are plenty of folks that I will not work with for the simple reason that they have been poor patrons. I’m allowed to make those eminently business decisions, because that is what it takes to keep operating.
Yes, Virginia, there IS an illegal economy. But under the Constitution the State does have a role in regulating and even banning private transactions.
Do you think it would be nobodies business if you rented to a 16 year old runaway? To a 16 member family for a one bedroom apartment? Rented an unsafe building to a women with babies?
Or is it only nobodies business if you want to rent to an illegal alien?
I think that the owner has a moral obligation not to abuse their tenents. That includes both of the examples that you’ve listed.
In examples where the owner fails their fiduciary duty is why these rules come about. I do not believe that the government should be regulating common sense. I think that the owner should do their due diligence into anyone that they rent a room in order to protect themselves.
I’ve been a tenent to many places before. I’ve had bad landlords who’ve evicted and kept the money in the middle of the month, despite laws to the contrary and laws that are supposed to protect the tenant.
From what I can see the laws that protectr the tenant are useless regulatory burden because they never actually help the tenant when he needs help.
So no, I don’t believe that the state should have a role in regulating private commerce. If I as an owner want to rent my house or rooms in my house, I should be able to do so to whomever I want.
The Constitution and the elected representatives of your State and their constituents apparently disagree with you.
While you are free to think the law should be different, and vote for Representatives that think the law should be different - that power is reserved, under the Constitution, for you and your State to work through.
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.