March 17, 2006
Full Contact Politics

Mark Griswold is now blogging at "Full Contact Politics". Today he comments on a Seattle Times article about illegal immigration and the church

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 17, 2006 04:54 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Thanks for putting the word out, Stefan! My blog, like SP, will focus quite a bit on NW politics but will also cover events outside our borders from time to time as well as the occassion non-political rant about life in the moonbat capital of the world.

Posted by: Full Contact Politics on March 17, 2006 06:39 PM
2. I wonder if at their little rally & march, they will be parading with Mexican flags, only...just as they do in S. Cal. Those with the American flag need not show up!
Why would these people want to go home to their own country when we give them food, shelter and all the freebies they want?

Posted by: Susu on March 17, 2006 07:21 PM
3. Mark, I don't buy that "criminalizing" aiding and encouraging illegals is unconstitutional. If there's not a law that currently says it's illegal, there should be...aimed not just at churches but at everyone.

It's one thing to provide aid to poor people. It's quite another to actively seek and advocate for illegals. Churches have stepped over the line and can't hide behind the First Amendment.

Posted by: South County on March 17, 2006 08:18 PM
4. Oh great! Another RINO blog that Stefan is trying to prop up. When are you going to stop mollycoddling these Mainstream Republicans?***

Anyway, great to have you on board Mark. Might not agree with all the stuff you say but I dig the way you go about trying to say it.

Oh...
***I was being facetious in the above paragraph, just in case there was any confusion.

Posted by: Reporterward on March 17, 2006 08:59 PM
5. Thanks Reporterward.
As for my response to South County and anyone else who thinks I'm defending the church in my posting, you are completely missing the point. I may be a Mainstreamer (for reasons of political process, not policy, btw) but that doesn't mean I'm advocating illegal immigration or condoing what the church is doing. What I'm simply pointing out is the constitutionally protected priest-penitent privilige (similar to attorney-client, etc.). As I said, I think the church needs to be urging these people to seek asylum legally. I don't think the government should start penalizing priests for not disclosing information they obtained in the confessional. Now, if the church is hiring illegal immigrants should they be prosecuted for that? Of course. Priest-penitent privilige doesn't extent to and I-9 form. (More comments listed under the article on Full Contact Politics)

Posted by: Full Contact Politics on March 17, 2006 09:08 PM
6. Mark, the issue is a little more nuanced than that. I'm sure you realize that. And yes, I did read the entire article.

It's not about defending churches or not defending churches. You're discussing to what degree their daily activities may be limited by government; you're discussing what may and may not be required of them. You're discussing, most importantly, they may conduct programs and activities which are against the law.

I have no interest in breaching any wall of conscience between priests and confidants. That has existed for hundreds of years.

What hasn't existed is the willingness... eagerness, even...to harbor what the article describes as known illegals. It's about aid stations in the middle of the desert. It's about politicing for a change in immigration law. That's a change, also, from traditional practice.

Any organization which advocates and empowers illegal activity has put themselves outside the law. I'm amazed they don't see the folly of that.

Posted by: South County on March 18, 2006 09:35 AM
7. We may not agree with the church lobbying for different immigration laws or helping the sick and homeless but on the first matter, people can lobby for whatever they want. It's up to us to elect leaders who will respond appropriately. On the second matter, again, I disagree with what they're doing to an extent but the extreme alternative (not providing any food or shelter at all) would lead to people dying in the streets. It's along the same lines as hospitals being required to treat criminals for gun shot wounds, etc. They, of course, are required to report this to the authorities. My only problem with extending this to churches in the immigration matter is that it's hard enough to get businesses to check immigration status before hiring someone. Are you seriously suggesting we require churches to start checking immigration status before handing out a bowl of soup? And if they don't do we fine the church? If so, I nominate you as the first volunteer and suggest you start putting a little more money in the plate from now on to cover those fines.

Posted by: Full Contact Politics on March 18, 2006 10:14 AM
8. I think it's a good thing you've started your own blog. I believe it will help clarify your thinking process.

There's a world of difference between feeding the poor whoever they may be, and designing programs to help illegals. In the first case there can be a plausible claim of ignorance. In the second it's an active, conscious decision to help those they know to be illegal.

That's a difference that makes a difference. Too often the supporters of illegal immigration use phrases such as "immigrants" or "undocumented" to blur distinctions. I believe that in this area clarity is crucial.

Do I differ from open immigration advocates? Most assuredly. I do so in at least two fundamental ways:

1) I believe we have the right to control our borders.

2) I believe we have to enforce laws as written or change the law.

The primary burden of illegal immigration isn't being born by the advocates of illegal imigration. They're paying for their "moral purity" with my tax dollars.

I believe we're overdue for a national discussion in immigration. I think a sound case can be made for an increase in immigration, as long as we control it.

Inherent in the actions of advocates such as these churches is the idea that I can't elect a government that contradicts their beliefs.

If they choose to act in violation of the law, that's a personal choice. I have no problem with such bearing the consequences of their decision.

Posted by: South County on March 18, 2006 11:47 AM
9. If so, I nominate you as the first volunteer and suggest you start putting a little more money in the plate from now on to cover those fines.

Amazing...I point out the dilemna faced by lawbreaking, and you try to saddle me, again, with the consequences of their flawed mental processes.

Posted by: South County on March 18, 2006 11:51 AM
10. We shouldn't expect liberalism to think outside the "bleeding heart" box.

We definitely do need to bring on a national debate, if you will, on illegal immigration. But, since the laws are what they are, and the lawbreakers know before they come into this country that they will be lawbreakers, should anyone reward this activity? Whether it be a cup of soup or a bed? ("dying in the streets", seems a little too dramatic a response to assume)

We, also, need to take a good look at what is happening in France at this moment. They have allowed (Over?)immigration of the Muslim populations. Assimilation has not happened and a patriotic love of country has not been achieved. Could this also happen in this country with the millions of illegals who have flooded in and know nothing of our history and feel no allegiance to America? There is a faction down in S. Calif. right now that wants the whole SW to be given back to Mexico because they claim it was taken illegally. Will there be enough pro-Mexican hearts that someday will agree with that cause?

Jesus, the model for the church, believed in the law, even to the extent of paying taxes. Lawbreakers are a plague on any civil society, and if the church wants to throw it's hat in that ring, it will have to accept the results.

Posted by: Susu on March 18, 2006 12:25 PM
11. Okay, just to stem the tide so I'm not branded a bleeding heart RDDB over this. Let me clarify my position to all of you (a position that is already crystal clear to me in my own mind).
I agree that illegal immigration is completely out of control and the US government should be doing whatever it takes to stem the tide from Mexico. Build a wall, shoot 'em if we have to. I really don't care. To quote a somewhat extremist candidate for US Congress, "we're being invaded from the south!"
I'm also opposed to anyone aiding and abedding illegal immigration be it the ACLU, the Catholic Church or Ward Churchill. If the church is willingly aiding known illegals outside the confidence of the priest-penitent confidence then, yes, they should be investigated.
What I'm also opposed to, however, is making the church check everyone's social security card before handing out a bowl of soup. If that makes me a bleeding heart then, well, give me an AKG before I keel over.

Posted by: Full Contact Politics on March 18, 2006 05:28 PM
12. I am a Catholic but I remember the bad old days in my Catholic Church in the 1980s where such stuff was going on.

I only found out after the fact but some of the people of the church were harboring an illegal from El Savador, Honduras or somewhere like that. That guy was ultimately killed by police when he took an old lady by knifepoint.

Around the same time an additional Priest came to stay at our Rectory. Unknown to but a select few this Preist was a child molester. Well eventially that got discovered by the general congregation and as you can imagine lots of people were upset. It even made a segment of 24/24.

Well, for the last 15 years or so such stuff has seemed to have stopped and most of the people involved have moved out of our Parish. But I still remember that time and it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't think anything like that is going on today. But we have just started up a Spanish language mass so perhaps it will happen again. I hope not.

I am a Catholic but I don't think, whether it is the issue of Priest Molesters or Haboring Ilegals that the church should be free from accountablity. If there is a suspicion of either going on, I don't only understand if, but demand that law enforcement inflitrate the Parish to find out what is going on and if sufficient evidence hold those in the Parish involved legally responsible.

I am Catholic but I don't believe that the Catholic church or any church for that matter can just go around free of being held accountable for illegal actions. And personal experience tells me that since such stuff has gone on in the past in my Parish, it is quite likely that somewhere such stuff is going on now. Hopefully not in my Parish, but maybe in my parish or other parishes in this area.

Posted by: Catholic on March 18, 2006 05:38 PM
13. Catholic, did you read my above posted comment or are you just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing?

Posted by: Full Contact Politics on March 18, 2006 05:49 PM
14. I guess adding it up it was more like 20 years ago. Wow.

But I still remember it like it was yesterday.

It it has forever distanced me somewhat from the church.

But I believe the Priest we currently have is Ok. I don't think he would tolerate such stuff. But I know that there are others out there who just might.

Although perhaps the Archibishop wouldn't tolerate it. After all Hunthauser was pretty extreme and fortunately Brunett isn't like that at all.

http://www.seattlearch.org

Posted by: Catholic on March 18, 2006 05:54 PM
15. Full Contact I was talking about something that I was around that deeply affected me.

I don't know your age but during the Reagan years the local Catholic Church here got pretty active politically on leftist issues. Not all Catholic Churches and definitely not all Catholics in the area, in fact I would say just a few. But still I can relate to this on a personal level.

As well as the stories I have told you about every once in a while in the Church bulletin you would have invitations to join into protests at Bangor and such. This was before the end of the Cold War and the so called Nuclear Freeze movement was in full swing. And unfortunately there was a relatively small but active group in my Parish who were supporting anti-nuclear protests.

Well, the Priest under whom all this was going on left in around the early 1990s and I have carefully watched and it seems that such stuff has stopped. Don't know what happened to that group but we do live in a pretty mobile society so I assume that most of them probably have moved on elsewhere.

But the point is, I know for a fact that such stuff goes on. I don't think such stuff is going on in my parish at this day and age, but past experience has shown me that such stuff is possible. I am very sensitive to it though and if it starts up again I am sure that the Blogs would serve as a good way of getting the word out against it.

Posted by: Catholic on March 18, 2006 06:04 PM
16. OK...now that you've made yourself quite clear...I will be just as clear. I do not want my money that I tithe to my church used for illegal giveaways, whether it be for soup or snooze. Our church sends teams of people to Mexico to help them with construction, etc. They also take lots of supplies for them. This is a good thing...helping Mexicans IN Mexico.

Now I sort of can compare this to voting. If someone is suspected of being an illegal voter, then showing a proof of citizenship/residency to determine their eligibility shouldn't be a problem. The illegal voter is just as much a lawbreaker as the illegal alien. The illegal alien uses up the resources that valid Americans might need. The illegal voter uses up the legal vote that counts for the legal voter.

Posted by: Susu on March 18, 2006 07:35 PM
17. Full contact, I missed at first your heads up about those illegals having a protest march tomorrow.

It is too bad that this wasn't announced on Talk Radio so a bunch of us conservatives should have countered marched with American Flags and digital cameras taking pictures of the illegals who are marching.

Thanks for warning us about Holy Family Parish.

http://www.holyfamilyparish.net

Like I said my church was kind of radicalized in the 1980s (although not to the extent some were back then) so I know what these people are capable off. It is a safe bet that there are people at that Parish breaking the law. Not all the parish, not even most of the Parish, but it just takes about an handful of people to do to this church what they did to mine.

Posted by: Catholic on March 18, 2006 07:37 PM
18. I was looking up on the Internet the Rev. Ramon Velasco to see if I could get anything on him and actually from first accounts, he seems pretty good.

He supported Pope John Paul II's advocacy of traditional rules demanding priestly celibacy, barring women from becoming priests, and condemning homosexuality. ( http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002230048_sundaymass04m.html )

But of course that doesn't tell me where he stands on the illegal immigration issue.

If anyone else has any information on this church, its Priests and its members this would come very handy. We didn't have blogs in the mid 1980s. I wish we had.

Posted by: Catholic on March 18, 2006 07:49 PM
19.
Here is another thing about the church.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2002/1215/cover.html

On the big day, Nayely's is one of four quinceañera celebrations held simultaneously at West Seattle's Holy Family Catholic Church. The parish introduced its first Spanish-language Mass a few years ago and now holds four a week to accommodate the rising number of Mexican, Peruvian and Salvadoran members. But when quinceañeras started squeezing weddings from the Saturday schedule, Holy Family decided it was time to consolidate its coming-of-age ceremonies.

-----

It seems like this movement is using "Spanish Language Masses" as a way to promote the illegal alien movement. If your church has just started up one of these, I would have concerns that there are a group there harboring aliens like what happened at my church in the 1980s.

http://www.seattlearch.org/FormationAndEducation/Progress/

Posted by: Catholic on March 18, 2006 08:02 PM
20. Click here to read about how they are actually encouraging Spanish Language Masses in the Puget Sound Area.

I fear that the Church is probably harboring many illegals just like they did in the 1980s when the Church was used by Leftists who were against Reagan's Central American policies.

Posted by: Catholic on March 18, 2006 08:15 PM
21. I think the rise of politicism in churches is a very dangerous thing. While we as good Christians need to be active in the way our government governs in issues as controversial as this I agree that the church needs to back off. The priest scandals are also indicative of what can happen in any bureaucracy when it gets too large. Hopefully the recent media attention of the latest wave will have shed enough light on the situation that it will be curtailed. And I agree, if the harboring of illegals is really as rampant as it appears then perhaps the government does need to step in. Just as long as the government doesn't force the church to start enforcing the laws.

Posted by: Full Contact Politics on March 19, 2006 02:02 PM
22. I understand a religious organization's position on helping people, but I disagree that is needs to help illigal immigrants. It undermines the very country's laws that let it operate and demonstrates disregard for rules. Does anyone think the illegals will pay back the help from the church? I don't. Someone always picks up the tab. Also, every dollar a church or government spends on illegals is one less dollar for its own members or citizens. Don't back-door the laws under the guise of religion.

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on March 19, 2006 10:00 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?