Commit a crime? Hide here.

The BBQ Pit
41

[QUOTE=hawksgirl]
Why?
[/QUOTE]

Because both of those specifically addressed unequal treatment of United States citizens, for one thing. Not foreign nationals who bypass legal entry procedures altogether, who are not citizens, who know full well they are breaking the law of this country by their presence, and yet clamor for the same rights and privileges afforded to legal residents— rights that would certainly not be granted unconditionally to U.S. emigrants to their country, were the situation reversed.

I am far from the “flag-waving patriot” type, and people very close to me were affected by this very issue, but I agree with Larry that complete anarchy, with open borders and absolutely no record of who enters and leaves, is not a valid substitute for reform.

42

[QUOTE= Vinyl Turnip]
I also believe immigration law is in dire need of reform, but the answer is not to encourage ignoring the law altogether— and the attempts here to equate immigration scofflaws with civil rights or women’s suffrage activists are in extremely poor taste at best, completely disingenuous at worst.
[/QUOTE]

Care to explain that attack?

43

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Care to explain that attack?
[/QUOTE]
He did. It’s a degree short of Godwin. It’s absurd to say that supporting immigration laws means you also support denying blacks or women civil rights. Every country in the world needs some sort of immigration law.

44

Yeah, but so are the idiotic comparisons of illegal alients to murders. Yes, we need to control our borders. But anyone who compares illegal immigrants to murderers is an asshole.

My point was that breaking the law can be moral or immoral. In most cases it’s better to obey the law even if you disagree with the law, and try to change the law. In other cases, obeying the law is immoral.

As for the contention that these churches need to work to change US immigration law rather than shelter illegal immigrants, well, perhaps you’ve noticed those marches? You don’t think churches that shelter illegal immigrants also work to liberalize US immigraiton policy?

I’m not in favor of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, but pretending that churches that shelter illegal immigrants are the equivalent of churches sheltering murderers and terrorists marks you as an asshole. A bigot. A fucking dork. As I said, the cops are legally free to simply get a warrant, go on church grounds, and arrest everyone there and deport those who are here illegally. Why won’t they do that? Because they’re afraid if they do that they’d look like assholes, and they don’t wanna look like assholes.

45

[QUOTE= Larry Borgia]
He did. It’s a degree short of Godwin. It’s absurd to say that supporting immigration laws means you also support denying blacks or women civil rights.
[/QUOTE]

Except you’re excluding a lot of middle and totally misreading me in order to get to the point where you would accuse me of something like that. I don’t know whether that’s intentional or not; I hope it isn’t.

In case you’re not inclined to read for comprehension (it is, after all, late), my point was simply that disenfranchisement under the law forces the disenfranchised group to resort to extralegal peaceful activity in order to validate their existence as a bloc; furthermore, any political power that a disenfranchised block wishes to exercise must often be done by proxy, namely, those currently in possession of the franchise.

THUS, I said that illegal immigrants could not be blamed for using the same tactics that blacks or women did when they found themselves in similar positions, namely establishing themselves as viable members of the community, demanding protection/recognition under any laws that could be made to apply to them, and by using abolitionists or male suffragists to advance their positions in legislative bodies.

Where in the world you managed to pull your interpretation from is beyond me.

And that’s POWER. That, right there, is peaceful, extralegal means, and I support it, purely as an exercise in politics. It goes against the rule of law, sure. But it doesn’t do so violently or disruptively. This isn’t the FALN. They’re advancing social change the best peaceful way they can.

46

Happy Scrappy hero Pup, do you believe we should not have immigration laws at all? If that’s your position, ok, I guess. If it isn’t, what should happen to those who break those laws?

47

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Well, it can become a moral problem if they have kids (who might be American citizens by virtue of being born here) or ties to the community, or a girlfrined/boyfriend, or if they have an issue that is short of grounds for asylum but could lead to a bad situation back home.

It’s not as black-and-white as it may seem. And I prefer to err on the side of compassion for people who have less power and privilege than I do.
[/QUOTE]

How far do you take this stance, though? If someone commits murder, is it a moral problem to lock them up for 20-life? What if they have kids, ties to the community, a boyfriend/girlfriend, or “issues” back home? How is deporting someone any different, morally? Both punishments seem to fit the crime.

Murder? Imprisonment.
Illegal immigration? Deportation

Why should having children, or a girlfriend! change the consequences of committing the crime?

48

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Because both of those specifically addressed unequal treatment of United States citizens, for one thing.
[/QUOTE]
So you disagree with the efforts of the abolitionists then? After all they were in favor of flouting U.S. law to help non-citizens … .

U.S. immigration law is an unfair mess. As long as that situation holds I find it very hard to condemn a church for making a public stand on the side of compassion.

49

[QUOTE= Larry Borgia]
Happy Scrappy hero Pup, do you believe we should not have immigration laws at all? If that’s your position, ok, I guess. If it isn’t, what should happen to those who break those laws?
[/QUOTE]

Of course I believe that we should have immigration laws.

I do think, however, that those we do have are too piecemeal in their implementation and too rigid in their enforcement. The thing is, an entire industry and an entire economic system has sprung up around illegal immigrants, from piecework to odd jobs to landscaping, and so on. American business actively encourages this. Furthermore, the idea of “protecting society” or “our way of life” doesn’t hold up in what is an immigrant nation.

I’m not advocating against the rule of law, and I’m not advocating for porous borders. I am saying that our society has created an “attractive nuisance,” and it would be irresponsible of us to refuse to acknowledge that.

If I had the immigration laws to rewrite, I’d want to do a whole lot of research before I decided what would be punishable and how. And while the “visiting work visa” or whatever they’re calling it these days, doesn’t strike me as the way to go, it’s a start.

[QUOTE= Carol Stream]
How far do you take this stance, though? If someone commits murder, is it a moral problem to lock them up for 20-life? What if they have kids, ties to the community, a boyfriend/girlfriend, or “issues” back home? How is deporting someone any different, morally? Both punishments seem to fit the crime.

Murder? Imprisonment.
Illegal immigration? Deportation

Why should having children, or a girlfriend! change the consequences of committing the crime?
[/QUOTE]

You cannot seriously be asking me to compare murder and illegal immigration.

One of the side products of murder is not the creation of a family and integration into society. Illegal immigration is an entirely different type of crime.

But let’s do a little balancing test, you and I, and I’ll show you where I fall, and you can decide to agree or disagree, as you wish. Let us balance the benefits to society against the harm done to the individual and society to determine what is appropriate.

You know what? Let’s not. It would take too long. Short version: I think you and I can both agree that the societal value of removing a murderer from the general population is of greater weight than allowing a murderer to remain with his family.

The question is, do you agree that the societal value of removing a person who is working to support a family from his family?

The general deterrence is the same in both cases- we want to send a message that we don’t like the activity. But I would trade someone’s liberty for the greater societal value of condemning murder long before I would for illegal immigration. The “crime” is not worth its collateral effects, to me.

50

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Controlling your borders and removing those who crossed them against existing law is not necessarily unjust, in fact, it is doing the work of the people, which is what government DOES. The church can claim they’re doing “God’s work” but they are ALSO breaking the law. Frankly, our immigration policy is lax in comparison to other countries. There is a legal way to emigrate to the US, it’s hard, but it can be done, truly we are doing a disservice to those who follow the rules by NOT enforcing the rules we have

[QUOTE=HSHP]
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.
[/QUOTE]

No, it DOES not IMHO, but here, while taking a stand the church is also accessory to a federal crime. The fact is that the church has no “power” to do this, they have decided to break the law, and in doing so, disregarded the will of the people they claim to serve.

[QUOTE=HSHP]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Look bub, the church follows BOTH the law of man and God’s law. Simply saying “we answer to a higher authority” doesn’t automatically give the church a pass, although the Catholics thought that putting filthy pederastic bastards undercover was a better “moral” thing to do, and it’s costing them dearly, which I think is just. Further, you cannot possibly dare to compare the American immigration situation with the war in El Salvador in the 70’s and 80s can you?
I don’t see 3,000 people a month dying in wartime violence, I don’t see bodies clogging streams. That’s out of order.

[QUOTE=HSHP]
Saying that illegal imigrants ought to be treated the same as carjackers is indeed asserting that all criminals are alike.
[/QUOTE]

To the end that they are criminals, yes, to the end that all punishments should be the same, no. I meant, and perhaps did not say concisely enough, that petty thieves and mass murderers are both criminals, but both do not deserve the same punishment.

[QUOTE=HSHP]
The Church’s business and the business of state both involve the lives of men. The Church IS doing its business here.
[/QUOTE]

But the business of the state involves ALL men, while the business of the church involves SOME men. The law of man is applied to EVERY man woman and child, while what you call God’s law is applied to only those to believe.

51

Sanctuary!
Sanctuary!
Sanctuary much!

52

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
You cannot seriously be asking me to compare murder and illegal immigration.
[/QUOTE]

No, and I never said that. I’m talking about the punishment for breaking our laws. Children are separated from their families all the time when a parent goes to jail, is sending parents to jail immoral? Or is it only immoral when the parent is deported? If so, why do you draw that distinction?

53

[QUOTE= buttonjockey308]
But the business of the state involves ALL men, while the business of the church involves SOME men. The law of man is applied to EVERY man woman and child, while what you call God’s law is applied to only those to believe.
[/QUOTE]

So what, the church was forcing people to help them hide illegal immigrants at gunpoint or something?

[Hijack]Actually, apart from your implied conclusion not following from your premise, it’s simply ridiculous to claim that God’s law only applies to some people. Only some people follow it – depending on whether they’re right or not, it either applies to absolutely everybody or absolutely no-one. Though, if you really want to get picky, Paul makes it clear in Romans that “law” is no no longer a part of morality, so God’s “law” really no longer exists.[/Hijack]

54

[QUOTE= buttonjockey308]
Further, you cannot possibly dare to compare the American immigration situation with the war in El Salvador in the 70’s and 80s can you?
I don’t see 3,000 people a month dying in wartime violence, I don’t see bodies clogging streams. That’s out of order.
[/QUOTE]

Of course I can. I just did. Who are you to tell me what’s out of order and what’s not? Especially when you’re advocating wildly dispropotionate punishments yourself?

Your assertion that a law is justified by its own existence is flawed.

“Because it’s the law” is not a valid counterargument.

[QUOTE= buttonjockey308]
The fact is that the church has no “power” to do this, they have decided to break the law, and in doing so, disregarded the will of the people they claim to serve.
[/QUOTE]

Of course they have the power to do this. They’re doing it, aren’t they? It might be against the law, but that’s not synonymous with “impossible.”

You can’t seriously be expecting to make a valid comparison between “the people” as the embodiment of government and “all men,” can you? The Church has taken a stand against laws it feels to be unjust on dozens of occasions, whether you want to accept the comparisons as valid or not. it’s doing that here. You cannot POSSIBLY be making the contention that harboring an illegal immigrant is UNJUST. Can you?
I can’t seem to get past your implict assertion that a law is validated by its own existence. Please explain this to me, because I’m floored by it.

[QUOTE= Carol Stream]
Children are separated from their families all the time when a parent goes to jail, is sending parents to jail immoral? Or is it only immoral when the parent is deported? If so, why do you draw that distinction?
[/QUOTE]

Did you read the rest of my response to you?

55

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
So you disagree with the efforts of the abolitionists then? After all they were in favor of flouting U.S. law to help non-citizens … .
[/QUOTE]

This ain’t the Underground Railroad, no matter how hard you try to spin it that way. Illegal immigrants are not being brought here involuntarily, enslaved for generations, sold as chattel, beaten and killed at will. If they were, I would support any means to stop it.

They’re coming here of their own free will, fully cognizant that they are breaking the law and could be deported if caught. Not all, but the overwhelming majority come for simple economic reasons (not for political asylum, to flee from famine or war).

I fully believe that drug laws are illogical, patently unfair, harmful to society, and that drugs should be legalized. However, I also understand that if I flout the law by openly buying and using drugs, I can be arrested, and I would not expect to hide myself in a church when they came for me.

56

[QUOTE=Pochacco]
So you disagree with the efforts of the abolitionists then? After all they were in favor of flouting U.S. law to help non-citizens … .

U.S. immigration law is an unfair mess. As long as that situation holds I find it very hard to condemn a church for making a public stand on the side of compassion.
[/QUOTE]
The Abolitionists helping people who were being kept as slaves, and were trying to gain freedom. Unless you equate being a Mexican (or wherever) citizen with being a slave this is a pretty silly analogy. Slaves wanted their freedom, Illegal Immigrants want a somewhat better paying job.

57

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Due respect and no comment on you personally or your beliefs, but I hate that phrase “above the law” and everything it conveys. Human beings ARE above the law, goddamit. If I may steal from Jesus: The law is made for man, not man for the law.

Laws that are unethical ought to be made right. It ought not to be for a man to have to conform to an unethical law. The church is doing the right thing here. An “illegal immigrant” is illegal only because magistrates have stolen land from others, drawn lines on maps, and now guard the lines with their armies.

58

I agree with most of this. I certainly agree it’s hypoctritical and counterproductive to depend on illegal immigrants for so much work and at the same time treat them like crap. We should reform our laws, possibly through guest visas or through some other system. My only beef is people comparing Illegals to slaves or other oppressed people. They came here voluntarily and knew they were breaking U.S. law.

59

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
This ain’t the Underground Railroad, no matter how hard you try to spin it that way. Illegal immigrants are not being brought here involuntarily, enslaved for generations, sold as chattel, beaten and killed at will. If they were, I would support any means to stop it.
[/QUOTE]
My point is that you seemed to put great stock in the fact that the immigrants aren’t citizens. I’m just pointing out that the same argument could have been used against the abolitionists.

The Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. The Declaration of Independence declares that ALL men have certain inalienable rights. The argument that rights in the United States are reserved for citizens only runs counter to the founding principles of the nation.

60

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Of course I can. I just did. Who are you to tell me what’s out of order and what’s not? Especially when you’re advocating wildly dispropotionate punishments yourself?
[/QUOTE]

We’re having a debate, I believe you’re out of order comparing the slaughter of innocents in a war-torn El Salvador to the US Immigration debate. I believe doing so does a disservice to those who died at the hands of El Salvadoran death squads, at the same time comparing our own federal agents to them, THAT is out of order. Further, I am NOT advocating disproportionate punishments, I am advocating deportation for illegal immigrants, it is a punishment they KNOWINGLY face when they come to our country illegally.

[QUOTE=HSHP]

Your assertion that a law is justified by its own existence is flawed.

“Because it’s the law” is not a valid counterargument.
[/QUOTE]

Flawed how? The representatives of the citizenry chose these laws, if those same representatives decide to listen to the citizenry and change the laws, then the system is precisely balanced, and the laws are justified by their existance. Period.

Because it’s the law is a PRECISE counterargument. If you’re going 65 in a 35 zone because you think God wants you to, and you get pulled over and ticketed, it is ‘‘because it’s the law’’. God carries no influence with a radar gun, pal.

[QUOTE=HSHP]
Of course they have the power to do this. They’re doing it, aren’t they? It might be against the law, but that’s not synonymous with “impossible.”
[/QUOTE]

I have the WILL to do anything, I have the POWER to do only a few things. The church has the will, but not the authority to harbor fugitives.

[QUOTE=HSHP]
You can’t seriously be expecting to make a valid comparison between “the people” as the embodiment of government and “all men,” can you? The Church has taken a stand against laws it feels to be unjust on dozens of occasions, whether you want to accept the comparisons as valid or not. it’s doing that here. You cannot POSSIBLY be making the contention that harboring an illegal immigrant is UNJUST. Can you?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I can and have. “The People” as embodiment of government represents ALL MEN, those that are believers in God, and those that are not, alike. God’s law is applicable to those that choose it’s path. God as you believe him/her/it to be is alike but seperate from what I believe him/her/it to be. You can believe with all your being that the law of the Christian God applies to every single person on earth, there are many that will disagree with you. The law of man, (i.e. the people as the embodiment of government) is meant to deal with EVERYBODY, despite beliefs, because even if you THINK you know what’s next, friend, I guarantee you don’t KNOW until you get there. Until then, you’re walking on faith, and hey, if that’s your thing, more power to you, but there are many other considerations in society.

I am making the contention that harboring an illegal immigrant is ILLEGAL, that is against the laws of society, the laws of ALL MEN in our country, and that although the church believes the laws unjust, they should be ready to accept punishment for flauting it. I KNOW the immigration laws are flawed, extremely so, but flaws do not exempt one person, NOT ONE, from the enforcement thereof.

Further, the rhetoric about illegal immigrants as equal to African slaves is absolute and total bullshit. I cannot think of a more outlandish comparison than that one. We KNOW slavery is wrong, we also know that uncontrolled immigration is a threat to our own safety and security. The people that came before us built what some (including myself) consider to be the greatest nation on the face of the earth, which is why everyone wants to be here, but quite simply, we can’t allow everyone who wants to, to come live here without some check and balance system.

Unchecked immigration will, not probably, maybe or potentially, but WILL, and in fact has cause(d) us great harm. Personally, I would rather help, say, Mexico fix their economic problems and create a better life for the citizens of Mexico in their proud homeland, than have them break our laws and face unnecessary punishment.

To Wit.