Posted on 03/31/2006 5:27:12 AM PST by ricks_place
When it comes to immigration reform, there is no shortage of bad ideas circulating on Capitol Hill. Some, like the proposal to wall off Canada, along with Mexico, insult the intelligence. But none is more offensive than a measure the House passed in its immigration bill last December that would make a criminal of any American who, "assists . . . harbors . . . encourages . . . or transports" an illegal alien.
In other words, it would be a felony for clergymen or Red Cross workers to provide humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants, whether it be water in the Sonoran desert or soup at a kitchen in San Francisco. Technically, even soccer moms picking up their Mexican baby sitter at a bus stop could get five years in jail for the crime of transportation. To its particular discredit, however, the measure is aimed most squarely at Good Samaritans.
Fortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not include this new definition of "alien smuggling" in the relatively enlightened immigration bill it approved Monday. But the fight in the wider Senate, and then in Congress, is far from over. So it's worth reviewing why--with a few glaring exceptions--representatives of major religious denominations are leading protests against the assault on America's proud, morality-based tradition of giving succor to those in need.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Don't mandate or prohibit charity.
This is Mexico's problem first and foremost. Why isn't the corrupt Mexican government being lectured to and held accountable by these self-righteous nincompoops?
Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, anyone who sneaks over the wall of a sheepfold, rather than going through the gate, must surely be a thief and a robber!" John 10:1
Just make being here illegally a felony and then anyone caught aiding an illegal will be guilty of aiding in the commission of a felony.
That way it doesn't single anyone specific out for aiding illegal trash.
Yeah, I'm sure there are just scads of soccer moms leaving their kids with illegal aliens.
Talk about screwed up logic and argument, the soccer mom who picks up her illegal toilet cleaner would be arrested, gosh breaking the law to employ an illegal and pay them slave wages is just being a humanitarian, sounds like a liberal logic to me.
Well, I'll be darn...
Liberals using the "GOOD BOOK" for their political gain, who would have ever thought it.
Mexico is already as a whole one of the most religious countries in the world, and yet they treat their own people so badly they need to flee. HELLLO!!!
Sounds like an argument for a wall.
Let them help them get back where they came from.
Let them help them inside their native lands.
DON'T help them break our laws.
Remember that little "Render unto Caeser" thing?
That precisely applies to this situation.
There is no reason that Canada cannot help the US build a secure fence between the countries, it would help both sides to control movement between them.
I suggest the following: Do your part, cut your own lawn, do your own gardening, clean your own house, mind your own children.
Making what is now considered a status symbol, having all of this done by the obviously servant class, become an indictment of treason and an accessory to the commission of a felony, will dry up the reason for most of the Invaders to come to our country.
Something that is overlooked by both sides most of the time is why illegal immigration is bad for the illegal immigrants.
Both imported and domestic criminals can prey on them with little fear of being arrested.
Any employer who is willing to hire illegal aliens is probably not above thinking "I don't need him next week, so why should I pay him this week". Another FReeper mentioned on another thread a case where Immigration always raided one company on the day before payday.
Is setting someone up to become a crime victim a moral act?
The following was in my local paper yesterday
Congress is considering a new law that will tighten America's border with Mexico, and it has spurred a national debate for and against immigration.
Basically, the law would make it unlawful to assist an illegal immigrant.
The Catholic church has spoken against the policy, stating that providing spiritual advice to an illegal alien would land the priest in jail.
Proponents of the law have vehemently denied that providing spiritual guidance qualifies as assisting an illegal immigrant.
Those it would affect would be the coyotes -- the human traffickers who are paid to transport a large number of illegal immigrants from Mexico to various locations around the United States.
Sometimes these transactions end with the unsuspecting illegal being fleeced for cash and dropped off in the middle of the desert.
Other times, tragedy strikes when the vehicle that is packed with illegals wrecks and several people are killed.
Communities with large Hispanic populations like Los Angeles and Denver saw protests last week against the law, claiming it discriminates against Hispanics.
But there are two larger issues to be examined here.
The first is the responsibility of Mexico to its own people.
With a porous border, there is no way to know who is coming in.
Perhaps the illegal immigrant is trying to escape a life of poverty and is coming to find a job.
Given the same set of circumstances, I might try to find a better life than that provided by the Mexican economy.
And so, Mexico does not guard the border to keep its people from crossing without following the proper procedure.
Instead, they encourage the exodus. Why? Because the second leading source of income in Mexico is money sent back from workers in the U.S. That source of income is only second to oil production in Mexico, which was developed by the U.S. and then nationalized by Mexico, costing American businesses billions.
Mexico is a member of the richest cartel in the world -- OPEC.
But that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, and the remaining population lives in poverty with no chance of advancement.
The Mexican government does nothing to change this status and has made no attempt at creating the opportunities that would provide a middle class.
And we reward their behavior by allowing illegals to enter the U.S. and export cash to Mexico.
That has not solved the problem of a missing middle class, because it is not creating economic change in Mexico.
NAFTA has yet to bring wages up in Mexico, either. All it did was send jobs out of the U.S. to Mexico where workers earn a fraction of the wages earned by the American counterparts.
Where would you want to work?
The other issue is national security.
Perhaps the illegal is simply trying to find a better job.
Or perhaps it is someone who seeks to do harm in the U.S.
Maybe the open border is an opportunity for those with various religious and political views to attack from within.
Either way, anyone who helps someone break the law is breaking the law themselves. It is almost ludicrous that there is a disconnect between the two.
The best thing America can do to improve the quality of life in Mexico is to close the border between it and the U.S. When the people have nowhere to go, they will demand change from within -- more freedom and opportunity, less corruption and favoritism for the people of Mexico.
And America would be safer from terrorist attacks that seek to simply walk right in to America.
This is a good law and should be passed.
EARL WATT
This bill makes me angry.
It says, "OK doctors, priests, health care workers, shelter-runners. We the elected officials have ducked our responsibility over the past 50 years to secure our borders. We did this because we are craven, spineless, self-serving, panderers.
"We are passing this bill to shunt the responsibility to YOU GUYS so that you will do OUR JOB. YOU WILL HAVE TO BE THE BAD GUYS BECAUSE WE ARE TOO WEAK AND WORTHLESS TO DO THE JOBS WHICH WE CLAMORED AND CLAWED AND EVEN CHEATED FOR, THEN PUBLICLY SWORE TO DO.
"An added bonus is that it gives us another opportunity to persecute the innocent, the way we have persecuted gun owners, property owners, white males, employers, and any other decent, law abiding citizens. In other words, don't go after violent felons who posess guns illegally... that would be too dangerous. Instead, ban gun ownership by grandmothers, boy scouts, hunters, etc. The latter group poses no physical threat to us.
"We want to pass this act because we do not have the guts to confront the real criminals and law-breakers, i.e., the illegal immigrants; BUT we DO have the guts to confront doctors, priests, health care workers, etc., who are easily intimidated and likewise pose us no physical threat. Hell we can just download their FBI files or sic the IRS on them.
"We are the government and this is the kind of craven worthless spineless cowardice we exhibit every single day. We are character-flawed, approval-seeking scum, and, we have control over you. So shut up and like this bill, because it will become a law for sure.
"Have a good one!"
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.