House set to pass bill which makes aid illegal

[muscadine]

joxn has it exactly right about this bill.

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

You don't have to take that literally to see that making basic aid for anyone illegal is an unthinkable thing to do. Yet, as a country, we're not that far from it. God save us.

EDIT: Well, at least they saved Christmas. :P

EDIT2: Find out how your Representative voted. Let them know how you feel.

Comments

[jerel.livejournal.com]

I think if there was ever anything we could point to as proof of bad leadership, it's this. A moral government does not regulate compassion. How can people who call themselves Christian even consider punishing those who live Christ's words to "love your neighbor as yourself."

[lady-elsinore.livejournal.com]

My opinion on the larger issue at hand may run counter to your own (though I'm not sure--my stance is that our country *has* to get illegal immigration under control; our resources as a country are stretched thinner than ever and schools and hospitals in border states are bearing an enormous burden that they simply can't shoulder indefinitely...). And ultimately, I think there should be penalties for assisting someone in illegally "breaking into" our country (for lack of a better word).

**However** to criminalize saving a person's life is both ridiculous and reprehensible. If someone came upon someone dying in the desert, are they supposed to ask to see a green card before they start CPR or offer water? If they decide to call an ambulance, would the paramedics then be given jail time or forced to forfeit their property because they came to the aid of an illegal immigrant? I think the forfeiture piece of this legislation is the scariest; anytime you give the government a financial incentive to use a law you invite abuse.

Now, in the article you linked, a government official stated that really the only people who would be prosecuted under this law would be those who "harbor" illegal immigrants, and she said that Churches are reading this legislation "too literally." Apparently this woman fails to understand that laws are about words, and that the literal meaning of those words is what defines whether something is or isn't lawful. To have a government official publicly declare what amounts to complete ignorance of the most basic fundamentals of law is frightening indeed. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the irony of the self styled "compassionate conservatives" who continue to pass laws that are anything but compassionate; I can't remember the last time I saw a compassionate act coming from this country's conservatives....

[hyounpark.livejournal.com]

I'm preaching to the choir here, but how do you read a law "too literally"? If the literal phrasing of a new law doesn't make sense or isn't defensible, maybe you shouldn't have passed it? It's not like we're talking about 300 year old blue laws.

Stupid dum basses.

Displeasedly,
Hyoun

Good question

[lady-elsinore.livejournal.com]

and the same thing I was wondering...Apparently we're all just supposed to take their word for it that they'll follow laws the way they tell us they will and not the way they actually wrote them.

I mean, golly gee gosh, a politician is always so honest, of COURSE they're telling us the truth! /sarcasm

Sounds more like a bunch of politicians didn't bother reading something before they signed on to support and vote for it, then now that the fit is hitting the shan, they're trying to act like things aren't as bad as they seem. They've gotten away with pissing on our legs and telling us it's raining for far too long....

Re: Good question

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Oh, it gets better. They're already prosecuting people with the present laws: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1218vigil18.html
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/107094
This has been all over the news locally for the last few months. So if harsher laws manage to pass in a Senate/House compromise it is ridiculous for lawmakers to argue they won't be used in this fashion.

Re: Good question

[lady-elsinore.livejournal.com]

2008 can't get here fast enough....

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

I'm basically neutral on the issue. More accurately, perhaps, would be to say I'm not sure what would be the best way to go on the issue. Illegal immigration is problematic for a number of reasons: it tends to stretch support institutions' resources, it deflates American wages (especially for the working class), it encourages an underground industry of human trafficing/slavery (which in turn connects to the drug trade), and among other security-related issues it may be putting us at risk in allowing would-be terrorists to filter into the country. And I don't really buy arguments that immigrants are needed to do jobs "nobody else wants." Pay them a competitive wage, and Americans would want to do the work. It's simple supply and demand. The trick is people want stuff for cheap, and illegal immigrants make a great source of cheap labor and thus allow for cheaper products. Public figures need to be honest on this count.

I do have to say that slogans like "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us" really resonate with me on an emotional level. Hispanics and the native peoples were part of the cultural face of the southwest long before an artifical barrier was placed in the form of a national border. On a more rational level, I'm not convinced the current direction on immigration policy is the best use of time and money. Spending millions patrolling the borders and putting up fences hasn't done squat to stem the tide. Pouring more money into such measures may not be the best strategy. I'm also not convinced harsh measures towards illegals (such as making them felons) will do anything except make Americans look heartless. It seems to me a more promising direction might include instituting fair trade (rather than free trade) practices which encourage rural Mexican to remain on their land and make a living, and do something to improve the working conditions in the maquiladora slums sitting right across our borders. Working on other cooperative measures with the Mexican government might also be fruitful. Currently they have no reason to get on board. A guest worker program might be the trick, but probably depends on the specifics. It's a tough issue.

[lady-elsinore.livejournal.com]

I agree 100% with your first paragraph, and I wholeheartedly agree that the revision of the border location complicates the whole issue. Of course, Europeans were invaders when they landed on Plymouth Rock, and I recognize this, though ultimately, times have changed and the borders and laws are what they are in the here and now.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know what we're doing currently isn't working, and isn't one definition of insanity "continuing to do something that isn't working"? Dovetailing on your point about the conditions in Mexico, I don't think any meaningful change will be possible so long as living conditions, wages, and corruption in Mexico are so atrocious. Faced with a choice of stark poverty in Mexico or "getting by" in the US and still able to send money home to family, who wouldn't consider crossing the border? And INS doesn't have the resources to deport even a fraction of the illegal immigrants currently here, so it's a decent bet that once someone gets across they'll be able to stay if they keep a low profile.

I think what you're getting at is that one single policy or law won't ever be able to address such a huge problem; the answer (whatever it is) has to include a multifaceted approach. Our government (as usual) is going about this with blinders on, and I'm not hopeful that's going to change any time soon...

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

That's truly horrifying.

My Congressional representative, Doris Matsui, is the widow of a survivor of a WWII U.S. internment camp for the Japanese, so I don't even have to look up her vote to know that she wouldn't have voted for anything like this.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Well, you should tell her how much you appreciate her presence in the House then. :)

[daret.livejournal.com]

Hmm, Sorry for the lack of a better term, but.. "Double ewe, tea, ef."

Curses, I not that politically active, but, the way things are happening over there makes me wonder about Florida's policy on immigrants from Cuba, and it makes me remember little Elian Gonzalez. Happy Late-Birthday Lil' Elian Gonzalez. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/07/elian.cuba.ap/ (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/07/elian.cuba.ap/)

All those corpses floating in the water, BAH!