Commit a crime? Hide here.

[buttonjockey308]

Based on this story here. Seems churches nation wide are going to be hiding criminals (illegal immigrants) until the rest of us figure out that we should just forgive people for their crimes, and just allow them to become citizens.

Now, we will discount the fact that the law of sanctuary is one dating back to medieval England, and not applicable to modern society despite the “movement” by American Churches…

@Wikipedia

Sanctuary was also a movement among churches in the United States in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, which from 1980 onward offered “sanctuary” to migrants fleeing El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, considered illegal aliens by the US Immigration and Naturalization Services.[1] Part of a broader anti-war movement positioned against U.S. foreign policy in Central America, by 1987 440 sites in the United States had been declared “sanctuaries” open to migrants from this region. These sites included university campuses and cities. From the 1980s continuing into the 2000s, there also have been instances of churches providing “sanctuary” for short periods to migrants facing deportation in Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, and Canada, among other nations. From 1983 to 2003 Canada experienced 36 sanctuary incidents

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime. The Church is using themselves as a shield to hide these criminals from arrest, prosecution and/or deportation. The only reason that the Feds don’t kick down the doors and remove the illegals is because of the instant bad press.

Question becomes, what if it were a murder suspect? Or a rapist, or bank robber, or, carjacker or drug smuggler? What then? Does the guy who shot a cop get a free pass just by seeking sanctuary in a church? What LEGAL authority gives the church right to hide some seedy fucker who is in violation of the laws and rules of our country?

I think none. Please correct me if I’m wrong, however.

I think churches of ALL denominations should stick to church business, and keep their noses the fuck OUT of the business of the state. Of course, I know that doesn’t happen and the church (specifically the Catholics) have hidden the worst of the worst of criminals from prosecution for decades, but that does NOT make it right.

There was a raid on a Little Village shopping mall that caused outrage here in Chicago last month.

I’ll see your outrage, and raise you a GET THE FUCK OUT if you don’t like how we do business. You KNOW it’s illegal to be here the way you are, you KNOW you shouldn’t be doing it, you KNOW there are consequences, and yet you march to demand that we change OUR laws, and the enforcement thereof to suit YOU and your needs. Fuck that. If you intend to break the law, you must live with the consequences. If you gamble with the welfare of your family, again, you must live with what happens when you’re found out. Perhaps it IS unjust, but you KNOW it is, and you expect dispensation based on what?

The fact that you work for cash and pay little to no taxes yet use the infrastructure that the rest of the taxpayers are paying to construct and maintain?

The fact that you chose to bring your family here and make them criminals too because you can’t make it where you live? (admittedly, a life in Mexico, for instance, can be a rough one, and this IS the land of opportunity, but there are legal ways to work and live here).

The fact that you have children? Listen, I didn’t have your kid, YOU did. YOU put that child in danger. YOU made that baby, friend. YOU are responsible for it, and for the next 18 years (if not beyond). If there is one simple act that would put the misery of the world to rest in VERY short order (meaning 15 years or less), it would have to be: STOP FUCKING! Of course, this is totally NOT applicable to victims of rape and incest, but not every poverty sticken child is a product of that. Can you imagine what 10 million fewer babies would do to the resources of our planet?

The fact that the IRCA worked so well in your favor in 1986 and after, that scores of illegal immigrants pour over our borders each and every year strengthening your political clout, despite your non-grata status?

I say bullshit.

With all that said, I’ll say this:

Things are tough all over, you want to be here, the fact is, we want people who are going to work hard and raise families, but godDAMN it, do it LEGALLY.

You have a right to be here,. A right to prosper along side people who were born and raised here, what you do NOT have the right to do is tax the system that supports you, which you do not in turn support, and demand changes to laws simply because they do not suit your way of life.

What you do NOT have the right to do is break the laws that are meant to protect ALL of us, even you, from another 9/11, which, as you may or may NOT know, was committed by, you guessed it, largely illegal immigrants. Nor does the church (specifically the priests or church administration) have the right to conspire with you and against the government to assist you in breaking the laws of this country, and I think it’s WAY past time for the feds to get some stones and take these criminals into custody, along with anyone else they find that’s breaking the law.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

This is probably not going to go well for you.

There are many types of criminals and many types of crimes. Today is more enightened than yesterday, but not as enlightened as tomorrow. Our representative government does not have an exclusive handle on morality or compassion.

Once upon a time, miscegination was a crime. Once upon a time, escaping from a man who held you as property was a crime.

@buttonjockey308

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime.

You are incorrect in this assessment. Not all people who commit different crimes are the same type of criminal.

Question becomes, what if it were a murder suspect? Or a rapist, or bank robber, or, carjacker or drug smuggler? What then? Does the guy who shot a cop get a free pass just by seeking sanctuary in a church? What LEGAL authority gives the church right to hide some seedy fucker who is in violation of the laws and rules of our country?

Murder, rape, robbery, carjacking, drug smuggling- these are not crimes where the ultimate goal is to better the lives of your family. The churches in question are likely seizing on THAT distinction in deciding which “criminals” to harbor. They may not have the LEGAL authority to do so, but the Church (mine, at least) is less concerned with temporal authority and more with Divine Commandment.

You can agree or disagree with the validity of this distinction, but the legal distinction between types of criminals is very real to the eyes of the law, and the difference between types of people is very real in the eyes of the Church, as is the difference between temporal and Divine authority.

@buttonjockey308

I’ll see your outrage, and raise you a GET THE FUCK OUT if you don’t like how we do business. You KNOW it’s illegal to be here the way you are, you KNOW you shouldn’t be doing it, you KNOW there are consequences, and yet you march to demand that we change OUR laws, and the enforcement thereof to suit YOU and your needs. Fuck that. If you intend to break the law, you must live with the consequences. If you gamble with the welfare of your family, again, you must live with what happens when you’re found out. Perhaps it IS unjust, but you KNOW it is, and you expect dispensation based on what?

This paragraph demonstrates a marked lack of understanding about how our legal system works.

How do you think emancipation happened?
How do you think women’s suffrage happened?

The fact is that groups who are noncitizens or disenfranchised HAVE to lobby and legislate by proxy, and do so all the time. The nature of our system is such that if you get enough people around to your way of thinking, you can make your way of thinking into the law. Because one position is currently dominant,that does not make that position the virtuous one. If one intends to break the law, one can always legislate the conflict away.

@buttonjockey308

What you do NOT have the right to do is break the laws that are meant to protect ALL of us, even you, from another 9/11, which, as you may or may NOT know, was committed by, you guessed it, largely illegal immigrants.

It is to rolleyes.

[DanBlather]

@buttonjockey308

What you do NOT have the right to do is break the laws that are meant to protect ALL of us, even you, from another 9/11, which, as you may or may NOT know, was committed by, you guessed it, largely illegal immigrants.

9/11 Commission: “As we know from the sizable illegal traffic across our land borders, a terrorist could attempt to bypass legal procedures and enter the United States surreptitiously. None of the 9/11 attackers entered or tried to enter our country this way.”

[Ravenman]

@buttonjockey308

Now, we will discount the fact that the law of sanctuary is one dating back to medieval England, and not applicable to modern society despite the “movement” by American Churches… [snip part about folks from Central American countries seeking sanctuary in US churches in the 80s]

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime.

I’m sort of undecided on immigration policy in general – I’m not for amnesty but realize it is foolhardy to think that we can just sweep out millions of illegal immigrants with more law enforcement – but good lord, man, criticizing churches for boarding people fleeing discriminant violence in war-torn Central America is just… heartless.

[Miller]

@buttonjockey308

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime.

Except, of course, for the part where their crimes cause harm to other people. Which is the point where I stop giving a fuck if these people are arrested or not. Factor in the reasons why they came here and broke those particular laws, and the general impossibility for 99% of these immigrants to get here legally, and I’m pretty solidly behind the church on this one. Which I believe is a first, for me.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

@Miller

Except, of course, for the part where their crimes cause harm to other people.

Maybe, if I beat everyone, even though I’ll be doing it completely sarcastically, to:

BUT THEY’RE TAKING OUR JOBS!!!twenty-five!!!
we won’t have to address that particular fallacy.

[LilShieste]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

There are many types of criminals and many types of crimes. Today is more enightened than yesterday, but not as enlightened as tomorrow. Our representative government does not have an exclusive handle on morality or compassion.

Once upon a time, miscegination was a crime. Once upon a time, escaping from a man who held you as property was a crime.

Once upon a time, “aiding and abetting” a criminal was also a crime.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

Murder, rape, robbery, carjacking, drug smuggling- these are not crimes where the ultimate goal is to better the lives of your family.

Maybe not in all cases, but it certainly could be in some (e.g., stealing a load of bread to feed my family).

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

The churches in question are likely seizing on THAT distinction in deciding which “criminals” to harbor. They may not have the LEGAL authority to do so, but the Church (mine, at least) is less concerned with temporal authority and more with Divine Commandment.

If people want to protest something that they see as immoral, and do so with illegal actions, they shouldn’t be surprised when the legal system comes crashing down on them.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

This paragraph demonstrates a marked lack of understanding about how our legal system works.

How do you think emancipation happened?
How do you think women’s suffrage happened?

I don’t see how buttonjockey308’s post demonstrates a lack of understanding about our legal system. In fact, quite the opposite (see my comment above).
LilShieste

[LilShieste]

@Ravenman

I’m sort of undecided on immigration policy in general – I’m not for amnesty but realize it is foolhardy to think that we can just sweep out millions of illegal immigrants with more law enforcement – but good lord, man, criticizing churches for boarding people fleeing discriminant violence in war-torn Central America is just… heartless.

This sanctuary thing is not quite the same as sweeping out millions of illegal immigrants. It’s about actually apprehending someone who has knowingly broken the law, has been identified as such, and is seeking assistance from a third party who seems to think they are above the law.
LilShieste

[Shodan]

@DanBlather

9/11 Commission: “As we know from the sizable illegal traffic across our land borders, a terrorist could attempt to bypass legal procedures and enter the United States surreptitiously. None of the 9/11 attackers entered or tried to enter our country this way.”

On the other hand, three of the six recently arrested for plotting to commit mass murder of American servicemen and -women were here illegally.

I know, I know - innocent until proven guilty and all that. Still…

Regards,
Shodan

[Aholibah]

Also, regarding services received and not paid for by immigrants, might I direct your attention to this report, which states in part (bolding mine):

Contrary to the public’s perception, when all levels of government are considered together, immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services received. This surplus is unevenly distributed among different levels of government, however, with immigrants (and natives) generating a net surplus to the federal government, but a net cost to some states and most localities. This misperception regarding immigrants’ net fiscal impact has been reinforced by several highly publicized recent studies that overlook three basic facts about immigration. First, integration of immigrants is dynamic; their incomes and tax contributions both increase the longer they live in the United States. Second, incomes vary considerably for different types of immigrants with legally admitted immigrants, as a group, generally having significantly higher incomes than illegal immigrants or refugees. Finally, the studies do not take into account the indirect benefits of job creation from immigrant businesses or consumer demand.

One of the myths often cited to support the contention that immigrants cost more than they contribute is that they are heavy users of welfare. The facts are very different. When refugees are excluded, it becomes clear that immigrants of working age are considerably less likely than natives of working age to receive welfare. Refugees are explicitly entitled to such benefits on arrival and are, not surprisingly, much more likely than natives to be welfare recipients. Again, the failure to differentiate immigrants according to their legal status contributes greatly to misperceptions of reality and to proposals of potentially ineffective policies.

and:

According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates major reductions in immigration to the United States. “The Costs of Immigration” (Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle’s study actually show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion (Passel and Clark 1994).

Granted, this study examines the impact of immigration of all kinds, but it is not safe to assume that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Many of them do, in fact.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

LilShieste, I don’t see your point.

buttonjockey seems to be saying that the church in question ought not do these things, that the people protesting on behalf of the immigrants ought not do so, that the entire process here is morally deficient because it is illegal.
While not disputing the illegality of what the church or the immigrants are doing, I very strongly disagree with the notion that immoral and illegal are the same thing.
The church is harboring illegal immigrants because it can do so- it has the power to do so because federal agents breaking into a church is some of the worst publicity in the world. Good for them. The church believes that its duty is to God, and it is using power that it has in order to fulfill that duty. Illegal? Perhaps? Immoral? Certainly not, according to them.

Maybe not in all cases, but it certainly could be in some (e.g., stealing a load of bread to feed my family).

As far as the rest of your nitpicking, are you trying to make a point, or nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking? To continue your nitpick- stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is more larceny than it is robbery. The point is that buttonjockey’s contention that all criminals are alike is not reasonably defensible. But you knew that, didn’t you?

@LilShieste

If people want to protest something that they see as immoral, and do so with illegal actions, they shouldn’t be surprised when the legal system comes crashing down on them.

The protestors were not engaged in illegal activity. Regardless of whether they came to this country illegally or not, they have the right of peaceful assembly and cannot be arrested for doing that.

Besides, I never said and will not claim that these people’s actions do NOT have consequences. Where I differ is what those consequences ought to be.

But you knew that as well, didn’t you?
Are there legal consequences? Certainly. But does illegality equal immorality? It most certainly does not.

[buttonjockey308]

@DanBlather

9/11 Commission: “As we know from the sizable illegal traffic across our land borders, a terrorist could attempt to bypass legal procedures and enter the United States surreptitiously. None of the 9/11 attackers entered or tried to enter our country this way.”

Staying past your visa and the forging of documents are still illegal immigration.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

Care to address the other objections?

[buttonjockey308]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

LilShieste, I don’t see your point.

buttonjockey seems to be saying that the church in question ought not do these things, that the people protesting on behalf of the immigrants ought not do so, that the entire process here is morally deficient because it is illegal.

What I am saying is that the Church ought not to harbor those who knowingly commit crimes against us, no matter how ambiguous, or, in some cases harsh the law is.

@HSHP

While not disputing the illegality of what the church or the immigrants are doing, I very strongly disagree with the notion that immoral and illegal are the same thing.

I personally never said illegal and immoral are the same. In fact, they are often at odds, but neither does the church corner the market on morality.

@HSHP

The church is harboring illegal immigrants because it can do so- it has the power to do so because federal agents breaking into a church is some of the worst publicity in the world. Good for them. The church believes that its duty is to God, and it is using power that it has in order to fulfill that duty. Illegal? Perhaps? Immoral? Certainly not, according to them.

Illegal? Definately. It must be understood that I am not against immigration, only illegal immigration. According to the laws, that apply to EVERYBODY, illegal or not, the Church, as what can be construed by some as a moral compass, should generally be in line with what is legal. Their “feelings” about harboring fugitives from another country notwithstanding, they are acting as conspirators in the commission of a federal offense. Period

@HSHP

As far as the rest of your nitpicking, are you trying to make a point, or nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking? To continue your nitpick- stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is more larceny than it is robbery. The point is that buttonjockey’s contention that all criminals are alike is not reasonably defensible. But you knew that, didn’t you?

Believe me when I tell you that I know precisely the difference between crimes and criminals, I do NOT assert that all criminals are alike, yet for every crime there is a criminal who will commit it, and for every criminal there is a punishment, fair in the eyes of the church or not, this is how we protect our society.

@HSHP

The protestors were not engaged in illegal activity. Regardless of whether they came to this country illegally or not, they have the right of peaceful assembly and cannot be arrested for doing that.

Besides, I never said and will not claim that these people’s actions do NOT have consequences. Where I differ is what those consequences ought to be.

Never said they were. Sure their voices can be heard, just like mine, where we part ways is the insistance that we refrain from enforcing our laws on them basically because there are too many of them to catch. If you break the laws of Mexico, for instance, just wait and see how fast your ass ends up in the klink.

Are there legal consequences? Certainly. But does illegality equal immorality? It most certainly does not.

Agreed, but moral code can be subjective, the law, while open to relative interpretation, is generally black and white.

[LilShieste]

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
buttonjockey seems to be saying that the church in question ought not do these things, that the people protesting on behalf of the immigrants ought not do so, that the entire process here is morally deficient because it is illegal.
I saw the first item in buttonjockey’s OP (that the church shouldn’t be doing what it’s doing), but I don’t see him saying anywhere that people shouldn’t be protesting on behalf of the immigrants (I would guess to have something done to the process of legal immigration). What buttonjockey is saying is that the church is committing a crime - whether we like it or not - by providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants. And I agree with him on this.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

While not disputing the illegality of what the church or the immigrants are doing, I very strongly disagree with the notion that immoral and illegal are the same thing.

I’m certainly not trying to argue that immoral and illegal are the same thing. I know that the church is doing what it sees as the “moral” thing, even though it’s illegal.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

The church is harboring illegal immigrants because it can do so- it has the power to do so because federal agents breaking into a church is some of the worst publicity in the world. Good for them.

You’re right - good for them. But if federal agents do decide to break into (read: enter) the church and arrest the illegal immigrants, I would also say “good for them”, for upholding the law in the face of a someone who is essentially trying to call a bluff.

If the church wants to participate in rallying a reform of the immigration system, then right on. If they church wants to act as an accessory to a crime, though, I just might not side with them.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

The church believes that its duty is to God, and it is using power that it has in order to fulfill that duty. Illegal? Perhaps? Immoral? Certainly not, according to them.

I’m not arguing otherwise. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”, is all I’m saying.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

As far as the rest of your nitpicking, are you trying to make a point, or nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking? To continue your nitpick- stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is more larceny than it is robbery. The point is that buttonjockey’s contention that all criminals are alike is not reasonably defensible. But you knew that, didn’t you?

My nitpicking is simply to point out that the church is committing a crime. I certainly don’t completely equate illegal immigration to murder (and I would guess that buttonjockey308 doesn’t either). Legally, though, it doesn’t matter which of these the criminal is guilty of.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

The protestors were not engaged in illegal activity. Regardless of whether they came to this country illegally or not, they have the right of peaceful assembly and cannot be arrested for doing that.

Besides, I never said and will not claim that these people’s actions do NOT have consequences. Where I differ is what those consequences ought to be.

What consequences do you think there ought to be, then?

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

But you knew that as well, didn’t you?

Why do you keep insisting that I “knew” these things? If you want to accuse me of something, just come out and do it.

My main beef with this whole sanctuary thing is the legality of it. From your posts, it looks like we don’t differ on that.
LilShieste

[LilShieste]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

buttonjockey seems to be saying that the church in question ought not do these things, that the people protesting on behalf of the immigrants ought not do so, that the entire process here is morally deficient because it is illegal.

I saw the first item in buttonjockey’s OP (that the church shouldn’t be doing what it’s doing), but I don’t see him saying anywhere that people shouldn’t be protesting on behalf of the immigrants (I would guess to have something done to the process of legal immigration). What buttonjockey is saying is that the church is committing a crime - whether we like it or not - by providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants. And I agree with him on this.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

While not disputing the illegality of what the church or the immigrants are doing, I very strongly disagree with the notion that immoral and illegal are the same thing.

I’m certainly not trying to argue that immoral and illegal are the same thing. I know that the church is doing what it sees as the “moral” thing, even though it’s illegal.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

The church is harboring illegal immigrants because it can do so- it has the power to do so because federal agents breaking into a church is some of the worst publicity in the world. Good for them.

You’re right - good for them. But if federal agents do decide to break into (read: enter) the church and arrest the illegal immigrants, I would also say “good for them”, for upholding the law in the face of a someone who is essentially trying to call a bluff.

If the church wants to participate in rallying a reform of the immigration system, then right on. If they church wants to act as an accessory to a crime, though, I just might not side with them.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

The church believes that its duty is to God, and it is using power that it has in order to fulfill that duty. Illegal? Perhaps? Immoral? Certainly not, according to them.

I’m not arguing otherwise. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”, is all I’m saying.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

As far as the rest of your nitpicking, are you trying to make a point, or nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking? To continue your nitpick- stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is more larceny than it is robbery. The point is that buttonjockey’s contention that all criminals are alike is not reasonably defensible. But you knew that, didn’t you?

My nitpicking is simply to point out that the church is committing a crime. I certainly don’t completely equate illegal immigration to murder (and I would guess that buttonjockey308 doesn’t either). Legally, though, it doesn’t matter which of these the criminal is guilty of.

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

The protestors were not engaged in illegal activity. Regardless of whether they came to this country illegally or not, they have the right of peaceful assembly and cannot be arrested for doing that.

Besides, I never said and will not claim that these people’s actions do NOT have consequences. Where I differ is what those consequences ought to be.

What consequences do you think there ought to be, then?

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

But you knew that as well, didn’t you?

Why do you keep insisting that I “knew” these things? If you want to accuse me of something, just come out and do it.

My main beef with this whole sanctuary thing is the legality of it. From your posts, it looks like we don’t differ on that.
LilShieste

[buttonjockey308]

@Aholibah

Also, regarding services received and not paid for by immigrants, might I direct your attention to this report, which states in part (bolding mine):
and:
Granted, this study examines the impact of immigration of all kinds, but it is not safe to assume that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Many of them do, in fact.

Everyone who makes a purchase pays taxes, but taxes on bread, eggs and milk do not, generally, pay for fire and police protection, education, medical care, or other infrastructure (i.e. public works). Property taxes do that, which, illegal immigrants are not inclined to pay, as getting a loan is quite a bit more difficult when you have no valid forms of identification. Further, if a person purchases fraudulent ID and pays taxes to the extent that citizens do, the problem shifts from being a strain on the system, to a threat to security.

Further still, those who get paid in cash pay NO payroll or social security taxes, which further strains the system at a larger level. Not only do we as tax payers pay to feed, clothe, educate and house illegal immigrants on different levels, we also pay to enforce the laws that will remove them. It is a circle of absolute madness.

[Monty]

@buttonjockey308

You have a right to be here,.

Actually, that’s not correct. Immigrants may be awarded the privilege to be in the US. US citizens have the right to be there. That’s why citizens don’t require a visa but immigrants do.

[Miller]

@buttonjockey308

What I am saying is that the Church ought not to harbor those who knowingly commit crimes against us, no matter how ambiguous, or, in some cases harsh the law is.

How absolute do you consider this principle to be?

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

@buttonjockey308

What I am saying is that the Church ought not to harbor those who knowingly commit crimes against us, no matter how ambiguous, or, in some cases harsh the law is.

And what I and the Church are saying is that when the action that the secular government is taking is unjust, it should be checked.

I personally never said illegal and immoral are the same. In fact, they are often at odds, but neither does the church corner the market on morality.

No, it might not, but here it is taking a stand based on what it believes to be the moral thing to do. And it is taking a stand where it has power and can act in a way that it thinks is moral, in order to check an immoral act.

According to the laws, that apply to EVERYBODY, illegal or not, the Church, as what can be construed by some as a moral compass, should generally be in line with what is legal.

No, the church should NOT. The Church follows God’s law, not man’s. This is what got Archbishop Romero martyred, among others. The Church’s JOB is to stand for what is moral.

I do NOT assert that all criminals are alike,

That is quite inconsistent with this:

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime. The Church is using themselves as a shield to hide these criminals from arrest, prosecution and/or deportation. The only reason that the Feds don’t kick down the doors and remove the illegals is because of the instant bad press.

Question becomes, what if it were a murder suspect? Or a rapist, or bank robber, or, carjacker or drug smuggler? What then? Does the guy who shot a cop get a free pass just by seeking sanctuary in a church? What LEGAL authority gives the church right to hide some seedy fucker who is in violation of the laws and rules of our country?

Saying that illegal imigrants ought to be treated the same as carjackers is indeed asserting that all criminals are alike.

Sure their voices can be heard, just like mine, where we part ways is the insistance that we refrain from enforcing our laws on them basically because there are too many of them to catch. If you break the laws of Mexico, for instance, just wait and see how fast your ass ends up in the klink.

This doesn’t make any sense at all. **Can you please point to where I said that we ought not enforce our laws? I have not said this at all. I have said that the Church is perfectly well within its own mission and its own power to do what it sees as right under these circumstances. **

I think churches of ALL denominations should stick to church business, and keep their noses the fuck OUT of the business of the state.

The Church’s business and the business of state both involve the lives of men. The Church IS doing its business here.

Agreed, but moral code can be subjective, the law, while open to relative interpretation, is generally black and white.

Both are open to interpretation. But compassion beats heavy-handedness if you’re going by God’s metric, which is what the Church is doing here.