And again, and again...

Now the texts are flying about FNC commentator Father Jonathan Morris, LC, who seems to have made some critical comments concerning AZ's new illegal immigration policies and procedures. I couldn't find reference to the comments that Ryan heard or read, but with any luck, I'll have his panties in enough of a bundle to actually get him to POST on this site.

As said, I don't know what Fr. Jonathan said exactly, but I can tell you that any legislation that has the potential to marginalize even small portions of the population (legal citizens, I mean), then I think you can expect the position of the Catholic Church to be one that reflects charity in action over force in reaction. In short, they will choose to err on the side of charity rather than security.

More importantly, though, I want it clear that I am not 100% comfortable with most of the AZ legislation, either... as I have stated in recent posts. I shudder at the thought of an American citizen being REQUIRED to produce proof of citizenship for nothing more than having Latino features or for speaking Spanish as a first language. If a crime has been committed, or there is evidence to suspect that a crime has been committed, then identification can be requested as allowed under current law... but there is no Constitutional grounds for demanding that anyone in this nation that might be suspected of being an illegal alien be able to prove their status without violating both their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Now, I can just hear those that are in favor of this sort of crack-down shouting at the top of their lungs, "But the Supreme Court upheld a State's right to enact and enforce "Stop and Identify" statutes as far back as 2004!!!" Very true, but for anyone that thinks this qualifies under that protection, you need to explain to me why the actual OPINION of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which is the case that determined "stop and identify" as legal and constitutional, states very clearly that the statute is satisfied with the submission of nothing more than the individual's name... nothing more need be delivered. So, if Mr. Juan Torres, DA for the City of San Antonio, TX, gets stopped on the highway by BP agents in Tuscon, AZ and suddenly realizes he has left his ID in a roadside cafe 275 miles away... he gets arrested for not being able to prove his citizenship? Or is the fact that he has provided his name (which is what the SCOTUS says satisfies the legal requirement for ID upon demand) enough to secure his safety and freedom from persecution, while still keeping America safe from "barbarian hordes" streaming across the Rubicon/Rio Grande?

I'm all in favor of State's taking the lead in the effort to curb illegal immigration, but as has been said a thousand times right here in this forum, by Ryan himself... we don't need NEW RULES to make us safer, we simply need the rules we have enforced adequately. We have a law on the books right now (another one I didn't like) that calls for the building of a fence from California to the Gulf of Mexico. Still not done. Deportation laws exist at every level for felons convicted within the US... Federal, State and local jurisdictions all know they are in force, yet they are applied and enforced only 7% of the time in this country, and almost NEVER for felons. WHY? If the Feds choose NOT to deport, then the State should. If the Feds don't want to make non-citizen criminals elligible for work-time incarceration (the new term for "chain gangs", I guess), then the State's should. I don't even have a problem with AZ Sheriffs that wish to make the convicts work out-of-doors, as long as they are provided with enough water and adequate rest time to make sure no one dies that hasn't been handed the death penalty... road crews and construction workers do it all the time, all year round.

The cries against illegal immigration in this country are about the cost these illegals are bring to the American tax payer, right? The cost in health care, housing, security risks, crime rates... all paid by the legal citizenry of the USA, and not by the illegals. So why is it alright to make tax paying citizens of this country run even the smallest risk of having their rights violated one iota further? I call this "cutting off the nose to spite the face"... and it never fixes anything.