The Next Phase of Immigration Reform

Archive From The 'Tank
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9190
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

Wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
SoulBiter wrote:It's a shame. He apologized for making a truthful statement. Guess the archdiocese gave him a call and told him to change his tone.
Seems to me that the priest-in-question would no longer affirm the following as being a "truthful statement":
In the [b] [url=https://kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1107970#1107970]above-linked article[/url][/b], Father Nick VanDenBroeke wrote:[...]

... "And if we want to protect our great country not only as a Christian nation, but also as the land of the free, then we must oppose the immigration of Muslims. That's an example of keeping bad ideas out of the country that we have the right to do as a sovereign nation."

[...]
Only after the Archdiocese came down on him. He didn't do a 180 on his own. Chances are he was "lovingly" told that his statement was not in line with Catholic teaching and if he wanted to continue to be a priest he would "fix it".
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Most Muslims want the same things most Christians want--a decent job and a decent school where their kids can get a quality education. The problems are that some Muslims also want
1) to congregate in their own communities so they can have a local sharia judge who handles their legal matters as opposed to using the same judges the rest of us do
2) some Muslim communities want to rely on doctors to perform services they would have received in the old country such as FGM and
3) some Muslims do not know how to leave behind practices they would have engaged in back home such as honor killing their daughter for daring to date a non-Muslim, thereby bringing shame onto the family

There have been documented cases of all three of those things happening in the United States and the United States was neither built upon nor supports any of those three things. If you want those things then stay in your home country instead of trying to bring them here. If you want to come here and be an American who simply happens to attend a mosque then you are welcome and no one will bother you (well, no one who isn't an asshole).
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Yeah, pretty much agree. Problem with political rhetoric is that it does not draw the distinction.

The majority who just want a decent job and a decent school where their kids can get a quality education (and maybe some of the freedoms they're otherwise denied) are completely ignored, (just like the ones condemning the violence and extremism are, or the ones giving help and support to members of other religions etc.) while the relatively few hard-liners are treated as though they represent all 1.8 billion Muslims.

--A
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy expanded now to include Brazilians
Image
Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, shares a smile with a Honduran girl named Cesia as he walks and prays with a group of migrants at the Lerdo International Bridge in El Paso June 27, 2019. Seitz has criticized the expansion of President Donald Trump's "indefensible" Remain in Mexico policy to cover Brazilians. (Credit: Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters via CNS)


EL PASO, Texas -- By requiring Brazilians seeking asylum in the United States to stay in Mexico while their immigration cases are reviewed is an unacceptable expansion of the Trump administration's already "indefensible program," said a Catholic bishop who heads a Texas border diocese.

"A year of Remain in Mexico has damaged enough human lives, hurt enough families and chipped away far too much at our country's commitment to life, dignity and the protections that should be afforded to asylum-seekers and refugees," El Paso Bishop Mark J. Seitz said in a statement.

"Remain in Mexico" is the popular name for the administration's Migrant Protection Protocols, also called MPP, which was rolled out in early 2019.

On Jan. 29 of this year, the administration announced the policy will now include Brazilians. They are the first non-Spanish speaking group to be covered by the policy; Portuguese is the first language of the vast majority of Brazilians.

"It is unfortunate that on this sad anniversary, the government should expand this indefensible program to Brazilians," Seitz said in his Jan. 31 statement. Because they do not speak Spanish, they are "thus made even more vulnerable to criminal predation and exploitation," he added.

Overall the "Remain in Mexico" policy, he continued, "unnecessarily" places Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers in a "lamentable position." These law enforcement officials who "are in the pews of our churches" have to choose "between following the laws of conscience or the morally bankrupt dictates of man when they encounter human beings in need, who represent for us Christ, hidden beneath the guise of misery, fear and desperation."

Seitz concluded his statement by saying: "May our consciences not be dulled and may those with the power to end 'Remain in Mexico,' and every inhumane action against the one human family, hear our voices shouting out in the desert for compassion and for justice."


Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

"Remain in Mexico" wouldn't be nearly as bad if Mexico would get its shit together and stamp out the cartels once and for all. They can't, of course, because far too many police and politicians are gladly on the cartel payrolls.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Federal judge accepts religious liberty defense of immigrant rights activists
Image
A file picture of the border wall between the US and Mexico. (RNS)


An Arizona federal judge has reversed the convictions of four faith-based volunteers who were fined and put on probation for aiding migrants at the border, saying that the activists were simply exercising their "sincerely held religious beliefs."

The ruling in United States v. Hoffman, which was announced on Feb. 3, upended a lower court decision that found the activists guilty of breaking federal law by leaving out water and food for migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.

Activists in the case argued they were working with the group No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, an official ministry of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, and thus were acting on their religious beliefs to save immigrant lives. They contended that prosecuting them violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from placing a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion.

The lower court rejected the RFRA argument, but U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez ruled that not only are the activists' beliefs sincerely held -- so much so that the "depth, importance and centrality of these beliefs caused Defendants to restructure their lives to engage in this volunteer work" -- but also that prosecuting them amounts to a substantial burden on their faith.

[...]

Márquez also invoked Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the landmark 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case that granted the craft store giant a religious exemption from providing female contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Márquez noted the justices described RFRA in their ruling as providing "very broad protection for religious liberty," and the government must provide religious people exemptions from laws unless they amount to the "least restrictive means" of furthering a "compelling government interest."

Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia University who joined other legal scholars in submitting an amicus brief in the case, called the ruling a "stinging rebuke" of both the lower court decision and the U.S. Department of Justice, which she accused of trivializing the religious freedom claims of the activists.

"For an administration that has made the protection of religious liberty its stated top priority, it is shocking to see how they have mocked the No More Deaths defendants in this case," she said.

Franke, who also heads up Columbia's Law, Rights and Religion Project, insisted unlike other rulings, Márquez was simply applying the law neutrally and "not just for religious actors that agree with the White House's political stances."

[...]


Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Wosbald wrote:+JMJ+

Federal judge accepts religious liberty defense of immigrant rights activists
Image
A file picture of the border wall between the US and Mexico. (RNS)


An Arizona federal judge has reversed the convictions of four faith-based volunteers who were fined and put on probation for aiding migrants at the border, saying that the activists were simply exercising their "sincerely held religious beliefs."

The ruling in United States v. Hoffman, which was announced on Feb. 3, upended a lower court decision that found the activists guilty of breaking federal law by leaving out water and food for migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.

Activists in the case argued they were working with the group No More Deaths/No Mas Muertes, an official ministry of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, and thus were acting on their religious beliefs to save immigrant lives. They contended that prosecuting them violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from placing a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion.
By extension, then, that baker was correct and did not break any laws for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple because of his "sincerely held religious beliefs" and that RFRA preventing the government from placing substantian burdens against the free expression of religion.

What an amazing legal precedent--"sincerely held religious beliefs" is now sufficient to make one immune to prosecution for certain crimes. Good to know.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »



Image
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:By extension, then, that baker was correct and did not break any laws for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple because of his "sincerely held religious beliefs" and that RFRA preventing the government from placing substantian burdens against the free expression of religion.
Didn't that baker win? And IIRC plenty of things have been refused due to religious beliefs, like providing birth control etc.

(Not disagreeing with you btw, insane sort of precedent to set, really.)

--A
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Human rights group says deportees killed after return to El Salvador
Image
Migrants from Central America trying to reach the United States react as police approach them near Frontera Hidalgo, Mexico, Jan. 21, 2020. (Credit: Andres Martinez Casares/Reuters via CNS)


MORELIA, Mexico -- At least 138 Salvadorans have been murdered after being sent back to their violent Central American country from the United States, according to a report from Human Rights Watch.

The report, released Feb. 5, also documented "more than 70 others, who were beaten, sexually assaulted, extorted or assaulted" by perpetrators ranging from gangsters to intimate partners to police and security personnel.

None of the findings surprised Catholic officials in the country, long a source of migrants because of civil war and later gang-driven violence and poverty. Church workers say deportees return to the same dangerous situations that forced them to flee in the first place.

"We know this is very real, and I knew of cases," said Rick Jones, adviser on migration for Catholic Relief Services in El Salvador.

"It is sending a lot of people back into harm's way," he said of deportations to El Salvador. "We still have a homicide rate of 32 for every 100,000. ... So people are still at risk."

The report comes as migration to the United States via Mexico becomes more difficult and the Trump administration applies pressure on countries to keep migrants from reaching the U.S. border.

U.S. officials are forcing asylum-seekers to await the outcomes of their claims in dangerous Mexican border cities. Some Hondurans and Salvadorans are now being returned to Guatemala, a country Catholic officials say cannot protect or provide for its own citizens and has little infrastructure for processing asylum claims.

[...]


Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Not our problem. El Salvador needs to fix its own problems.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Pope's Malta visit a commitment to migrants and healing wounds -- Archbishop Scicluna
Image
Logo and motto of Pope Francis' visit to Malta.


The Catholic Church of Malta has released the motto and logo of the visit of Pope Francis to Malta on Pentecost Sunday, May 31. In a video message, Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta comments on the significance of this visit.


The announcement of the visit of Pope Francis to Malta in May this year has been received with enthusiasm by its archbishop, the government and the people.

The Holy See Press Office officially announced on Monday that the Pope has accepted the invitation of President George Vella of Malta, the authorities and the Catholic Church of the country and would visit Malta and Gozo on May 31, 2020.

The theme chosen for the papal visit is, "They showed us unusual kindness" (Acts 28, 2). It is accompanied by a logo depicting open hands from a ship reaching out to a Cross. Chapter 28 of the Acts of the Apostles recounts the adventures of St. Paul the Apostle, who on his way to Rome to face charges, was shipwrecked together with his sailing companions on the island of Malta.

Traditionally, St. Paul's Bay and St Paul's Island are believed to be the location of this shipwreck.

In a video message, Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta spoke about the generosity with which Paul and his shipwrecked companions were received by the islanders.

"I would like to welcome His Holiness to the island of St. Paul and also thank him for the beautiful meditations he gave us in January of 2020, on this important passage from Scripture," Archbishop Scicluna said.

The motto, he explained, is also "a reminder that we need to welcome each other, to forgive each other and to welcome migrants who knock on the shores of our islands, seeking a safe haven and human dignity".


Apostolic Journey by Pope Francis to Malta [YouTube: 2.5 min]
Image


[...]

The upcoming visit of Pope Francis will be the 4th papal visit to Malta. St. Pope John Paul II visited the Mediterranean island twice, in 1990 and 2001. Pope Benedict XVI visited Malta in 2010.

[...]


Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Attorney General Barr is cracking down on sanctuary cities.
Charging that so-called "sanctuary" cities that protect illegal immigrants are jeopardizing domestic security, Attorney General Bill Barr announced a slew of additional sanctions that he called a "significant escalation" against left-wing local and state governments that obstruct the "lawful functioning of our nation's immigration system."

Speaking at the National Sheriff's Association 2020 Winter Legislative and Technology Conference in Washington, D.C., Barr said the Justice Department would immediately file multiple lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions for unconstitutionally interfering with federal immigration enforcement, and implement unprecedented national reviews of left-wing sanctuary governments and prosecutors.

"Let us state the reality upfront and as clearly as possible," Barr began. "When we are talking about sanctuary cities, we are talking about policies that are designed to allow criminal aliens to escape. These policies are not about people who came to our country illegally but have otherwise been peaceful and productive members of society. Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes. This is neither lawful nor sensible."
I would also immediately stop any and all Federal money going to any sanctuary city or State, regardless of the purpose of that aid. Once that money stops you will see the so-called sanctuary policies end almost overnight. The law is the law, even if you don't like it. If you don't like immigration laws as they exist then motivate Congress to change them by contacting your representative and voting.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9190
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

Its about time. But I suspect they had to wait until they had enough Federal Judges in place to over-ride the liberal judges that dismiss these cases. I remember a number of years ago in the Obama admin, the state of Texas wanted to put stricter immigration laws in place, they were told by the courts that Federal law trump State law. But then when the positions reversed the Judges went the other direction. That's when you know they are not being impartial.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Many Federal judges are no longer impartial or non-political. Sometimes, cases are shopped to a particular venue to get a favorable result.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Ah, the State Rights conundrum... :D

--A
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Technically, yes--California can indeed prevent State officials from traveling to Texas and expensing it back to California. I wish they would, actually, because I don't want California State officials here trying to mess things up.

By the same token, Texas should raise the rate of all that natural gas and electricity we sell to California as much as the law will allow.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Trump administration to deploy specialized Border Patrol agents to sanctuary cities
Image
Adrees Latif/Reuters


Elite border agents will be sent to cities including New York and Chicago.


The Trump administration is redirecting agents from a specially trained Border Patrol unit to help ramp up arrests and removals of undocumented immigrants in "sanctuary cities," multiple law enforcement officials confirmed Friday.

Members of the U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Unit, a rapid-response security force, are deploying to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Chicago and New York. Other agents from several ports of entry and field stations along the border are expected to be sent to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, Detroit and Newark, New Jersey, a senior Customs and Border Protection official confirmed.

Some 100 agents will be sent to assist the ICE deportation force, the official said.

"ICE does not have sufficient resources to effectively manage the sustained increase in non-detained cases which is exacerbated by the rise of sanctuary jurisdictions," according to a Department of Homeland Security statement.

[...]

"As we have noted for years, in jurisdictions where we are not allowed to assume custody of aliens from jails, our officers are forced to make at-large arrests of criminal aliens who have been released into communities," Matthew Albence. the acting director of ICE, said in a statement. "This effort requires a significant amount of additional time and resources."

[...]

"This administration seems to think they can intimidate local law enforcement officials or act independently when operating in their jurisdictions," said John Cohen, a former senior DHS official and ABC News contributor. "That is a dangerous strategy that will fail."

[...]


Image
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »



Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

There should be special raids in sanctuary cities since those cities are helping people break the law. If you are in the country illegally then you are in the country illegally, meaning you are subject to arrest and deportation at any time. The rest of us are not allowed to break the law and get away with it, so why should illegal immigrant be allowed to break the law and get away with it? Why do the rules not apply to them, only to us?

Also, any city declaring itself a "sanctuary" city should immediately cease receiving any Federal money, regardless of its intended purpose, whether for infrastructure, education, or health care. If they don't want to help enforce all the laws then they receive none of the benefits. That will stop sanctuary cities almost overnight.

Any city official who broadcasts that raids are going to take place should be arrested and charged with "obstruction of justice" as well as "aiding and abetting".

On the other hand, I would broadcast the news "we are going to be conducting raids in Houston"....then show up in San Antonio. Surprise!
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
Locked

Return to “Coercri”