Senator Hillary Clinton: House immigration bill would turn Jesus into a criminal

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Accusing Republicans of betraying family values, Senator Clinton said a House immigration bill would turn "probably even Jesus himself" into a criminal.

[...]

The House bill would make unlawful presence in America, currently a civil offense, into a felony. It would also criminalize anyone who knowingly provides assistance to an illegal immigrant. The archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, last month instructed the priests of his archdiocese to disobey the law, saying it violated their obligation to the law of God.

Mrs. Clinton, who previously said the bill would move America toward a "police state," also invoked biblical language yesterday. "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Mrs. Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan."

http://www.nysun.com/article/29661

[Mirorgate 0]

Accusing Republicans of betraying family values, Senator Clinton said a House immigration bill would turn "probably even Jesus himself" into a criminal.

[...]

The House bill would make unlawful presence in America, currently a civil offense, into a felony. It would also criminalize anyone who knowingly provides assistance to an illegal immigrant. The archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, last month instructed the priests of his archdiocese to disobey the law, saying it violated their obligation to the law of God.

Mrs. Clinton, who previously said the bill would move America toward a "police state," also invoked biblical language yesterday. "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Mrs. Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan."

http://www.nysun.com/article/29661

Hmm... well if she is using her husbands example of what the scriptures say... no wonder she's confused. I mean, didn't he start to combust into flames when asked to swear to tell the truth upon the bible?

[kaydee457 13]

Accusing Republicans of betraying family values, Senator Clinton said a House immigration bill would turn "probably even Jesus himself" into a criminal.

[...]

The House bill would make unlawful presence in America, currently a civil offense, into a felony. It would also criminalize anyone who knowingly provides assistance to an illegal immigrant. The archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, last month instructed the priests of his archdiocese to disobey the law, saying it violated their obligation to the law of God.

Mrs. Clinton, who previously said the bill would move America toward a "police state," also invoked biblical language yesterday. "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Mrs. Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan."

http://www.nysun.com/article/29661

Hmm... well if she is using her husbands example of what the scriptures say... no wonder she's confused. I mean, didn't he start to combust into flames when asked to swear to tell the truth upon the bible?

She is clearly a joke....I sincerely hope the Dem's promote her next time around. We deserve another 4 years.....

[pax 0]

I don't think this particular provision of the bill will, or should, go anywhere. I am all in favor of stemming the tide of illegal immigration, but am I understanding correctly that any agency or individual that fed a hungry person or gave a bed to a homeless person could be prosecuted if that person was found to be an illegal immigrant?

First of all, how on Earth would you begin to enforce that kind of law? There are so many small-scale charitable organizations that provide assistance to a population that might theoretically include immigrants, both legal and illegal, that I suspect it would amount to tilting at windmills. Second, I've volunteered in soup kitchens and hospitality centers for the poor and homeless, and the individuals who sit down to eat a meal or make a phone call are generally not even asked to give their names. Nor should they be. That kind of assistance is rendered on a no-questions-asked basis and to do otherwise would indeed be contrary to at least the Christian spirit.

[faith 0]

I don't think this particular provision of the bill will, or should, go anywhere. I am all in favor of stemming the tide of illegal immigration, but am I understanding correctly that any agency or individual that fed a hungry person or gave a bed to a homeless person could be prosecuted if that person was found to be an illegal immigrant?

First of all, how on Earth would you begin to enforce that kind of law? There are so many small-scale charitable organizations that provide assistance to a population that might theoretically include immigrants, both legal and illegal, that I suspect it would amount to tilting at windmills. Second, I've volunteered in soup kitchens and hospitality centers for the poor and homeless, and the individuals who sit down to eat a meal or make a phone call are generally not even asked to give their names. Nor should they be. That kind of assistance is rendered on a no-questions-asked basis and to do otherwise would indeed be contrary to at least the Christian spirit.

I think the point of the bill is if they KNOWINGLY give harbor or help to illegal immigrants. At least that's the only way it would work. You are right, soup kitchens and homeless shelters rarely ask for names or other info from the people that come in.

[pax 0]

I think the point of the bill is if they KNOWINGLY give harbor or help to illegal immigrants. At least that's the only way it would work. You are right, soup kitchens and homeless shelters rarely ask for names or other info from the people that come in.

Is this provision of the bill aimed at "coyotes" and the like, then?

[faith 0]

I think the point of the bill is if they KNOWINGLY give harbor or help to illegal immigrants. At least that's the only way it would work. You are right, soup kitchens and homeless shelters rarely ask for names or other info from the people that come in.

Is this provision of the bill aimed at "coyotes" and the like, then?

coyotes? like the animals?

I think it's aimed after the businesses and families that harbor the illegal immigrants.

[pax 0]

"Coyotes" are the human smugglers who are usually paid a cash fee in exchange for information/help in illegally crossing the border. Sometimes they do more, like find jobs for the people they also smuggle.

[faith 0]

"Coyotes" are the human smugglers who are usually paid a cash fee in exchange for information/help in illegally crossing the border. Sometimes they do more, like find jobs for the people they also smuggle.

thanks, i had no idea what you meant by that. I'm not big on my illegal alien terms apparently

then yeah, it would be aimed at those people, at least logically speaking it would. Not sure if they've been specificially named or whatnot, but logic would think that is who they would target.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I heard that there are also religious groups that cater specifically to the unique needs of undocumented aliens.

[pax 0]

It's all good, Faith!

I wouldn't have a problem with trying to take down the coyotes and the crooked businesses that knowingly employ large numbers of illegals. Indeed, I think it's a crime that currently less than 1% of the ICE budget is directed toward enforcing laws on employers!

I think it becomes much sketchier when we start talking about what kind of "help" to illegal immigrants we mean. Not just because I do believe that immigration enforcement must be carried out with respect to basic human rights, but I don't want to see the people who staff charitable concerns burdened with having to check IDs before they dish out a dinner or offer someone a fresh pair of socks.

[faith 0]

I heard that there are also religious groups that cater specifically to the unique needs of undocumented aliens.

so they'll go after them too right?

[I'm Gone 60]

Do you find links to all these articles on start_some_sh*t.com? LOL

[Bootylicious!! 2]

Yes, it did include charitable organizations and religious groups. Also includes doctors and the like. It was just about including anyone who had anything to do with illegal aliens. That's why it was such a ludicrous bill.

[faith 0]

It's all good, Faith!

I wouldn't have a problem with trying to take down the coyotes and the crooked businesses that knowingly employ large numbers of illegals. Indeed, I think it's a crime that currently less than 1% of the ICE budget is directed toward enforcing laws on employers!

I think it becomes much sketchier when we start talking about what kind of "help" to illegal immigrants we mean. Not just because I do believe that immigration enforcement must be carried out with respect to basic human rights, but I don't want to see the people who staff charitable concerns burdened with having to check IDs before they dish out a dinner or offer someone a fresh pair of socks.

i think it would be impossible to do so in the homeless shelters and food pantries. I've worked the food pantries. Some people (documented legal citizens) would not stay if they had to show ID's or give personal information.