Apostolic Minister/State Rep. voted for AZ bill

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by DAII

But by definition being illegal is criminal activity.

It becomes circular

I understand, but I think there is generally understanding and compassion among people toward those who might be escaping hardship or squalor. From an American point of view, being compassionate to anyone in such a predicament is patriotic and based on our principles as a country. From a Christian point of view, compassion toward people is mandatory.

Within Christianity, we encounter situations where following the law to the letter would prevent the spreading of the Gospel. In those cases, God trumps man. In other cases, people should be encouraged to do the right thing, but I don't believe we should be acting aggressively to report them to authorities if they don't. Exceptions would be when we are put in danger by another person's criminal activity, or we see that they are endangering others.

Even the government in Arizona is not pushing the issue to THAT point--and neither is the pastor with his vote. They're simply saying that if a person commits another sort of crime, presumably of a more serious nature, that they can check their status. (I'm assuming to the end of deporting them if they are illegal.

The pastor may have taken a step away from leniency, but he definitely didn't vote on a bill that calls for any truly aggressive action against members of his congregation. While illegal immigrants may be criminal by definition, the bill in question doesn't seek to punish them for that act alone, but only if they couple it with other criminal activity.

IMO, that is perfectly reasonable. The hysterical response needs to be calmed down, not encouraged. (Speaking mainly of responses from church leaders.) The reaction is revealing a fear that some churches contain criminals guilty of more than just illegal entry. That's pretty interesting.

Also, it is possible that Pastor M objected to things he saw while growing up. That's common in young men. Perhaps he's trying to set some thing straight. I still see no reason for him to be filleted, and I'm appalled that he would be strung up by his ministerial peers.

[DAII]

Ah, a real conservative Reaganite and not some tea party xenophobe passing off moralist drivel as Christianity .... or some Tio (uncle) Tomas biting the hand that feeds him.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I understand, but I think there is generally understanding and compassion among people toward those who might be escaping hardship or squalor. From an American point of view, being compassionate to anyone in such a predicament is patriotic and based on our principles as a country. From a Christian point of view, compassion toward people is mandatory.

Within Christianity, we encounter situations where following the law to the letter would prevent the spreading of the Gospel. In those cases, God trumps man. In other cases, people should be encouraged to do the right thing, but I don't believe we should be acting aggressively to report them to authorities if they don't. Exceptions would be when we are put in danger by another person's criminal activity, or we see that they are endangering others.

Even the government in Arizona is not pushing the issue to THAT point--and neither is the pastor with his vote. They're simply saying that if a person commits another sort of crime, presumably of a more serious nature, that they can check their status. (I'm assuming to the end of deporting them if they are illegal.

The pastor may have taken a step away from leniency, but he definitely didn't vote on a bill that calls for any truly aggressive action against members of his congregation. While illegal immigrants may be criminal by definition, the bill in question doesn't seek to punish them for that act alone, but only if they couple it with other criminal activity.

IMO, that is perfectly reasonable. The hysterical response needs to be calmed down, not encouraged. (Speaking mainly of responses from church leaders.) The reaction is revealing a fear that some churches contain criminals guilty of more than just illegal entry. That's pretty interesting.

Also, it is possible that Pastor M objected to things he saw while growing up. That's common in young men. Perhaps he's trying to set some thing straight. I still see no reason for him to be filleted, and I'm appalled that he would be strung up by his ministerial peers.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by DAII

A, a real conservaytive Reaganite and not some tea party xenophobe passing off moraliat drivel.

Stop speaking Spanish.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

A, a real conservaytive Reaganite and not some tea party xenophobe passing off moraliat drivel.

Since Missy B, has spoken in support of the "tea party agenda" in general in the past I guess we can pretty much agree that the "Tea Party" agenda itself is NOT "xenophobe" nor "moralist drivel?"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

http://www.apostolicnews.org/2010/05...s-for-sb-1070/

According to the "apostolicnews" news story (which appears to be a quote of another news source), the gentleman in question received "religious asylum" and is now a US citizen.

The new Arizona law doesn't even address those seeking asylum nor their family members. The new Arizona law merely seeks enforcement of current Federal immmigration statutes. If the AZ law is "unjust" - why has there been no criticisms of the Federal laws that are its foundation?

It's this kind of subterfuge that the media and advocates of illegal immigration are pushing in this debate. Bro. Montenegro's position isn't "hypocritical" at all. As a US citizen he is merely asking that US laws be enforced.

[MissBrattified]

Last word before I REALLY have to dash:

IMO, this illustrates the difficulty of Christians being involved in politics. Our first allegiance is to God's Word. When and if scripture and biblical principles part ways with politics, conservative or otherwise, logical or not, we have an obligation to act Christlike. The pastor has taken a political stance, which will probably conflict with his ability to show compassion at some point and time. I do understand his position, I don't disagree with his vote, but I do think he is unwise to participate.

Bottom line: I don't think Jesus--or Paul--would have reported someone for being on the wrong side of a border. Ergo, I don't feel the need to do that, no matter what our present laws might require of me. Would I report an illegal immigrant? No. Not for that reason alone. They'd have to do something to endanger me, my family or my community before I would see that as a viable option.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Last word before I REALLY have to dash:

IMO, this illustrates the difficulty of Christians being involved in politics. Our first allegiance is to God's Word. When and if scripture and biblical principles part ways with politics, conservative or otherwise, logical or not, we have an obligation to act Christlike. The pastor has taken a political stance, which will probably conflict with his ability to show compassion at some point and time. I do understand his position, I don't disagree with his vote, but I do think he is unwise to participate.

Bottom line: I don't think Jesus--or Paul--would have reported someone for being on the wrong side of a border. Ergo, I don't feel the need to do that, no matter what our present laws might require of me. Would I report an illegal immigrant? No. Not for that reason alone. They'd have to do something to endanger me, my family or my community before I would see that as a viable option.

For when you get back...

How will this law conflict with his ability to be "Christlike" to ALL the members of his flock?

The law places no burden upon "pastors" nor upon anyone outside of law enforcement agencies within the state of Arizona. If you are not a sworn member of some local or state law enforcement agency - the law doesn't even place you within its scope.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by pelathais

For when you get back...

How will this law conflict with his ability to be "Christlike" to ALL the members of his flock?

The law places no burden upon "pastors" nor upon anyone outside of law enforcement agencies within the state of Arizona. If you are not a sworn member of some local or state law enforcement agency - the law doesn't even place you within its scope.

I don't think the bill itself exerts any pressure at all. I think it would be political pressure, whether from political peers or the press. I was just thinking that from his perspective, he could be pressured politically into taking a more stringent stance in order to be "consistent." Only time will tell on that.

Likewise, while the bill itself seems fairly routine, I can see how some bright-eyed-bushy-tailed redneck racist cop could use it as an excuse to trample on people he's always wanted to smash. Make sense? I think that's what people are afraid of--not the bill itself. People are fearful of those who will use the new empowerment to exercise their hatred for illegal immigrants.

I know that I've heard malicious comments about illegal immigrants among political conservatives, even among Christian groups, and the viciousness can be pretty disturbing. So while I recognize that the bill itself is fair, and I think the pastor's vote was fair, I can see how the whole process could be problematic in the future.

Then again, any steps taken toward fixing the problem of illegal immigration is going to be problematic, to put it lightly. The Arizona debacle is a microcosm of what would happen if the federal government took direct action. Can you imagine if this was California passing a bill instead of AZ?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I don't think the bill itself places any pressures at all. I think it would be political pressure, whether from political peers or the press. I was just thinking that from his perspective, he could be pressured politically into taking a more stringent stance in order to be "consistent." Only time will tell on that.

Likewise, while the bill itself seems fairly routine, I can see how some bright-eyed-bushy-tailed redneck racist cop could use it as an excuse to trample on people he's always wanted to smash. Make sense? I think that's what people are afraid of--not the bill itself. People are fearful of those who will use the new empowerment to exercise their hatred for illegal immigrants.

Those kind of "cops" are criminals and usually get ferreted out by their own excesses. An example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiy...layer_embedded

I don't know if this (now) former police officer was a racist or a redneck - but he sure seemed to hate bicyclists. Unfortunately, there are plenty of idiots that get into law enforcement. Silencing or tying the hands of good cops won't change that sad fact.

America has an out of control illegal immigration problem that is putting stresses upon our communities and public services. We need to address that.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I know that I've heard malicious comments about illegal immigrants among political conservatives, even among Christian groups, and the viciousness can be pretty disturbing. So while I recognize that the bill itself is fair, and I think the pastor's vote was fair, I can see how the whole process could be problematic in the future.

Then again, any steps taken toward fixing the problem of illegal immigration is going to be problematic, to put it lightly. The Arizona debacle is a microcosm of what would happen if the federal government took direct action. Can you imagine if this was California passing a bill instead of AZ?

Actually, California did pass a similar - though more far reaching bill - Prop. 187. That was dropped when Gray Davis was elected governor.

The Federal government does take direct action - a lot of times. And there are other Arizona laws that are more onerous to illegals than this new one like the human smuggling felony charge that PO mentioned earlier.

There is just so much misinformation about this law. All this law really does is to undo Janet Napolitano's "sanctuary law" and other local ordinances that have conflicted with the Federal laws.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36865

This law introduces nothing new. It merely requires that all other laws and ordinances in AZ conform to the U.S. Federal Codes cited within the law itself.

[berkeley]

Reminds me of Prop. 187 in CA when I was in the 7th grade (1994).

wiki:
Proposition 187 included the following key elements[4]:

1.All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee's immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They must also notify the detainee of his or her apparent status as an alien.
2.Local governments are prohibited from preventing or limiting the fulfillment of this requirement.
3.If government agents suspect anyone applying for benefits of being illegal immigrants, the agents must report their suspicions in writing to the appropriate enforcement authorities.
4.A person shall not receive any public social services until he or she has been verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
5.A person shall not receive any health care services from a publicly-funded health care facility until he or she meets the requirements above.
6.A public elementary or secondary school shall not admit or permit the attendance of any child until he or she meets the requirements above.
7.By 1996, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolled within the district and the legal status of each parent or guardian of each child.
8.A child who is in violation of the requirements above shall not continue to attend the school 90 days from the date of notice to the attorney general and INS.
9.The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.
10.The manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of false citizenship or residency documents is a state felony punishable by imprisonment or fine.

wiki;
The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by Attorney General Dan Lungren.[20] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994 - blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents - multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration, similar to the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe.[21]Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:

"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."

Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, in 1999, newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation,[22] and then dropped the appeals process before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[23]