Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Brian503a's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California or ground zero of the invasion
    Posts
    16,029

    Memo to the Wall Street Journal

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=21958

    Memo to the Wall Street Journal
    By Debbie Schlussel
    FrontPageMagazine.com | April 7, 2006


    The Wall Street Journal is typical when it comes to the sob story coverage of illegal aliens by the Mainstream Media.

    For a newspaper that claims to know so much about what is the best immigration policy for America, the Journal betrays itself as completely clueless on the issue.

    The pro-"guest workers" paper is so much a hostage of big business looking for cheap labor that its editorial writers apparently missed the memo: There isn't an INS anymore and hasn't been for years.

    In an editorial on Friday's Taste Page, the Journal emphatically stated its opposition to House language in the immigration bill that makes it a felony for anyone--including religious workers--to help illegal aliens. Here's part of what the Journal wrote:

    It is not the job of ordinary citizens to act as INS agents. More to the point here, though, it should not be the job of INS agents to arrest human-rights workers dispensing water and other basic aid.

    ICE Replaced INS, Sort Of
    Beside the fact that this absurd statement sounds like many American Muslims who say it's "not their job" to tip off the government about potential terrorists, it's hard to take the Journal seriously on immigration when it's no-one's job to act as "INS agents" because the agency was eliminated under the 2002 Homeland Security Act and hasn't been in existence since about early 2003. The portion of the INS made up of investigative agents merged with the U.S. Customs Service to become ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The latest unqualified ICE chief, Julie L. Myers a/k/a "The ICE Princess" must be very upset the Wall Street Journal doesn't even know she--or her agency--exists. (With all of her phony dramatics in press conferences about child porn tape owners, it's easy to forget she's supposed to be--but hardly is--pursuing illegal aliens.)

    If the paper--one of the most important in the nation--hasn't noticed this news in three years, can we really believe they've taken notice of the immigration problems that have hemorrhaged in the same time period?

    Then there's the crux of the Journal's editorial. The paper is mad that soup kitchens and priests might evoke scrutiny for helping illegals. The paper thinks, for some reason, that religious-affiliated parties should be exempt from abiding by immigration laws.

    And, of course, the Journal cites the more palatable Red Cross and a Catholic Cardinal. It pointedly only decries government encroachment upon rabbis, priests, and pastors. But, what about mosques?

    We know that a Brooklyn mosque-- not far from the Wall Street Journal's offices--the Alkifah Refugee Center not only aided and abetted Muslim illegal aliens entering the country, but it was the mosque where al-Qaeda terrorists prayed and plotted the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

    In an Associated Press story on immigration, running today, Jamal Badawi, an Islam expert at St. Mary's University says that "Islam emphasizes a moral duty toward immigrants" above U.S. immigration laws. "The Quran also speaks of a Muslim obligation toward anyone seeking a haven."

    Given this, is it really a good idea to exempt religious groups from following the law? Why not also allow religious figures to evade other laws, too, like robbery, rape, murder, etc.? Why is illegal immigration any different? Why should conspiracy to help in this crime be permissible?

    The Journal is--shocked, shocked!--that government would insert itself "directly into the affairs and faith-based prerogatives of churches." But isn't this the same Wall Street Journal that on a different day, in a different editorial endorsed government doing exactly that...with faith-based funding of billions of our tax dollars? Why, yes it is. Where's the consistency?

    The Journal goes on to complain that "technically, even soccer moms picking up their Mexican baby sitter at a bus stop could get five years." But isn't it illegal to have an illegal alien baby-sitter? Didn't several parties in the administrations of Bush the father, Clinton, and Bush the son, lose out on prospective judicial and cabinet positions for hiring undocumented workers and not paying social security taxes? Yes. So why the contradiction to protect soccer moms who break the law and won't hire an American baby-sitter?

    Finally, back to the religious groups. The Wall Street Journal thinks House legislation prosecuting anyone helping illegal aliens, including religious groups, is new. It isn't. The House language would not "change decades of law with respect to religious organizations" and illegal aliens, says Rep. Tom Tancredo in a USA Today op-ed. "From 1986 until this year, no organization was allowed to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from law enforcement." Religious groups were not exempted and not one was shut down, not even the Alkifah Refugee Center.

    We can't expect the Journal editorial writers to know this because, hey, they don't even know the INS is gone. But yet they know what's best for the country: dangerous, unfettered immigration that has already overtaken our country beyond the point of invasion.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Brian503a's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California or ground zero of the invasion
    Posts
    16,029
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id ... =frontpage

    REVIEW & OUTLOOK

    With Charity for All

    A religious mandate to help illegal immigrants.

    Friday, March 31, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

    When it comes to immigration reform, there is no shortage of bad ideas circulating on Capitol Hill. Some, like the proposal to wall off Canada, along with Mexico, insult the intelligence. But none is more offensive than a measure the House passed in its immigration bill last December that would make a criminal of any American who, "assists . . . harbors . . . encourages . . . or transports" an illegal alien.

    In other words, it would be a felony for clergymen or Red Cross workers to provide humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants, whether it be water in the Sonoran desert or soup at a kitchen in San Francisco. Technically, even soccer moms picking up their Mexican baby sitter at a bus stop could get five years in jail for the crime of transportation. To its particular discredit, however, the measure is aimed most squarely at Good Samaritans.

    Fortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not include this new definition of "alien smuggling" in the relatively enlightened immigration bill it approved Monday. But the fight in the wider Senate, and then in Congress, is far from over. So it's worth reviewing why--with a few glaring exceptions--representatives of major religious denominations are leading protests against the assault on America's proud, morality-based tradition of giving succor to those in need.





    A secular objection is one that we ourselves have made many times before: It is not the job of ordinary citizens to act as INS agents. More to the point here, though, it should not be the job of INS agents to arrest human-rights workers dispensing water and other basic aid, like the two people snapped up last year in Arizona while driving injured aliens to a doctor.
    The Rev. Luis Cortes, a Republican and the president of Nueva Esperanza, the country's largest Hispanic faith-based community development group, told us that the smuggling measure attacks the very underpinning of Judeo-Christian theology, which is to help those who travail and "treat aliens with fairness, justice and hospitality." Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles vowed last month to instruct "the priests of my archdiocese to disobey the [proposed] law." It would, he said, violate "our Gospel mandate, in which Christ instructs us to clothe the naked, feed the poor and welcome the stranger."

    Notably absent from these compelling protests are the voices of some influential conservative Evangelicals. A number have said nothing, or, like Chuck Colson, evasively called only for "civility" in this debate. The Christian Coalition, meanwhile, has openly opposed immigration reform proposals--like many in this week's Senate bill--that go beyond strict enforcement measures. On the matter of punishing aid-givers, for instance, the organization apparently believes that the law-breaking of illegal immigration trumps claims to Christian compassion.

    We'll leave it to voters to determine the political consequences of such a stance. Suffice it to say that along with many Americans, large numbers of rank-and-file evangelicals (including many Hispanics) are uneasy particularly about the notion of criminalizing acts of charity.

    Morality aside, it's stunning that anyone would support--overtly or through their silence--a proposal that would insert government directly into the affairs and faith-based prerogatives of churches. When we allow the government to tell priests, pastors and rabbis whom they can help among the suffering, we give new meaning to the word "restrictionist."
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •