Apostolic Minister/State Rep. voted for AZ bill

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Basically, he has voted to allow law enforcement to do their jobs. I don't think that necessarily means that he would personally report illegal aliens or worse, kick them out of the congregation.

The way the new law will be implemented from the "practical" standpoint is in the words of the law that you "bolded" above... "... when practical..."

There will be no roundups, no mass raids by local law enforcement, no mass arrests of Hispanics "going out for ice cream." This new law was intended only as window dressing and to send a message. It's opponents don't like the message and have benefited politically from the crime and chaos at the border.

There just might, however, be an occasion when a dangerous killer is stopped and the cops have nothing developed yet to pin on the guy and warrant holding him further. However, if the killer is in the country illegally, Arizona law enforcement now has a tool that they can use to hold the bad guys until more information comes in and a case can be made that can be taken to a judge.

On the whole, this new law will make life safer for the Hispanics ("legal," "illegal," and even the US citizens!) of the Southwest. Until you've actually spent some time looking down the barrel of a gun, or had your loved ones held at gunpoint, it's hard to see the most practical aspects of this legislation.

[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.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

MB, not sure that's fully true. I'm no expert in law, I've read over the bill. There's some controversy by what "lawful contact" means. Then later in the bill, it's reasserted what happens to those who provide shelter for illegal aliens, etc... Much more broad than "ID please. No ID on you then you are being detained until we can clear this up, or if you are illegal you are getting kicked out."

It's a type of mass deportation. Not a fan.

You're right--it is more broad than I thought. I don't have time to finish reading it right now--be back after class!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I think the point about the pastor's hypocrisy is that many of his congregants are illegal aliens.

Since the new law doesn't require pastors to ask for a "suspected illegal's" documents, how is this hypocritical?

The only ones being instructed to ask, are local law enforcement... and then, only when they are already involved in a "legal contact" ... and then, only if it's "practical."

[DAII]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Stop speaking Spanish.

Sorry, on my phone ... now home on the computer ... made edit ... see post again.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Since the new law doesn't require pastors to ask for a "suspected illegal's" documents, how is this hypocritical?

The only ones being instructed to ask, are local law enforcement... and then, only when they are already involved in a "legal contact" ... and then, only if it's "practical."

Yawn .... the gas chambers and the Final Solution were deemed practical as well.

You have it ... totalitarianism, fascism and all.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by DAII

Sorry, on my phone ... now home on the computer ... made edit ... see post again.

Thank you!

[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 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?"