berman@ihopb.UUCP (Rational Chutzpah) (01/15/85)
====================================================
We get enough self-righteous mouthings on this net about
the "evil empire," so here's some cheerful news about the
respect for religion and human beings in Ronald Reagan Land:
"The Justice Department [sic] announced 16 indictments and
more than 60 arrests today in a crackdown on church groups
accused of smuggling [refugee] aliens from Central America.
"The indictments were based in part on evidence gathered by
four UNDERCOVER AGENTS WHO, WEARING CONCEALED TAPE RECORDERS ATTENDED
CHURCH MEETINGS in Tucson about helping people flee from El Salvador
and Guatemala to the United States.
"....... those indicted said that they had helped refugees enter
the United States as part of a movement to provide sanctuary to
people who face persecution and death squads in El Salvador
and Guatemala"
"The indictments included a Protestant minister, two Roman Catholic
Priests and three nuns...
"'The Government has planted bugs on its agents and has infiltrated
the church from within' said Rev. John Fife of the Tucson
Southside United Presbyterian Church.
"Approximately 10 churches in New York and New Jersey have given sanctuary
to Central Americans..."
NY TImes 1/15/85
...Shades of the Underground Railroad!
Andy Berman
==================================================================gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/17/85)
> We get enough self-righteous mouthings on this net about > the "evil empire," so here's some cheerful news about the > respect for religion and human beings in Ronald Reagan Land: ... [NY Times article about refugees from El Salvador omitted] ... > Andy Berman Self-righteous mouthings? The subject of Soviet oppression is usually addressed by Fundamentalist crazies or not at all (Well, not always, but usually). I feel that it is worthy of more discussion than that. Since you've made an implicit comparison between that "evil empire" and the U.S., I think it's high time for some old statistics. [O= 10,000 people] 1) War deaths in Cambodia in the past ten years (largely due to war with Soviet-backed Vietnam): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 2) War deaths in El Salvador in the past ten years (Note that I said *ten* years, not just the four that Reagan's been in office): OOOOO I realize that someone might say to this: "Well, who cares about the Soviet Union. We live in the U.S., not Russia." And my reply is: Firstly, I am replying to Berman's implicit comparison between the two countries. Secondly, we have a significant amount of influence over the Soviet Union. We trade with them, we lend them money, and we do jockey for political power with them all over the globe. For example, while we send less than 500 million dollars in aid anually to El Salvador, we have loaned Poland several tens of billions, and they still owe us (and are hard-put to pay us) something between 30 and 60 billion dollars (I can't remember which figure is right). The main thing is, governments are rarely judged on a comparitive basis. As compared to other governments in the world, the U.S.'s government ranks fairly well. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (01/17/85)
Since when is it permissable for anybody, or any group of people, (including any church) to violate the immigration laws of the United States by illegally smuggling in aliens? In point of fact, the government used proper enforcement techniques to verify the crime and provide information leading to arrests under federal law. Religions and their believers are not and never have been, above the law. Groups who wish immigration laws changed should write their congressmen, not break the law by smuggling in people from Central America (or anywhere else). And besides, what the hell do they think they're changing by smuggling in a few hundred people anyway? -JCP-
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (01/18/85)
<followup to Joe Pistritto> Do you REALLY believe these churches are SMUGGLING in people?? News coverage has make it fairly clear that "smuggling" is a bit of Adminis- tration propaganda. Haven't you heard of the "right of sanctuary"? Until fairly recently when assorted dictatorships violated the policy to death, most Latin American governments actually respected the tradition even for people accused of pretty serious crimes. Finally, a number of the churches involved have a long & distinguished history of conscientious civil disobedience, streching back to the early 19th century. For many Central Americans in the US, deportation means almost certain imprisonment, torture, & death for political reasons. I find your surprise or indignation pretty disingenuous. "Gimme shelter!" Ron Rizzo
lydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) (01/21/85)
In article <236@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) writes: > >[O= 10,000 people] > >1) War deaths in Cambodia in the past ten years (largely due to war with >Soviet-backed Vietnam): > >OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO >OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO >OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO >OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO > >2) War deaths in El Salvador in the past ten years (Note that I said *ten* >years, not just the four that Reagan's been in office): > >OOOOO Wait a second. I thought that most of those deaths in Cambodia were due to Pol Pot, whose regime was toppled by the Vietnamese invasion. Pol Pot was a Chinese puppet, not a Soviet one. (Let's not confuse our bogeymen, here!) >The main thing is, governments are rarely judged on a comparitive basis. >As compared to other governments in the world, the U.S.'s government ranks >fairly well. Sure it does. But it lends its support to some really deplorable gov'ts. The whole point of Andy's posting was that the Reagan administration has refused to allow political refugees from US-backed countries in Central America to live in the US. Admitted, these churches are breaking the law by sheltering refugees. The tragedy is that many of these people would be in real danger if they remain in their own country; and the administration refuses to let them in, because to do so would be to admit that our client-states aren't as friendly as some of us would like to think. The churches are doing what they think is right; now we have returned to the problem of civil disobedience etc. Chris Lydgate
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (01/21/85)
> > Religions and their believers are not and never have been, > above the law. > > Groups who wish immigration laws changed should write their > congressmen, not break the law by smuggling in people from Central > America (or anywhere else). And besides, what the hell do they > think they're changing by smuggling in a few hundred people anyway? > > -JCP- In reguards to your above statements: 1. I would assume it's been a long time since you had a history course. 2. Maybe a few hundred deaths? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (01/21/85)
In article <643@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >> Religions and their believers are not and never have been, >> above the law. >> >> Groups who wish immigration laws changed should write their >> congressmen, not break the law by smuggling in people from Central >> America (or anywhere else). And besides, what the hell do they >> think they're changing by smuggling in a few hundred people anyway? >> >> -JCP- >In reguards to your above statements: >1. I would assume it's been a long time since you had a history course. >2. Maybe a few hundred deaths? Gee isn't it nice to see people responding to my comments by throwing out random insults to my intelligence (its so USENET to do that...) In response to your non-reponse to 1) Please show me the provisions of applicable federal law which exempt [any] religious organization from the requirement to promptly report known violations of law to authorities (you don't get to use priveledged relationship, may people in these churches OTHER than the pastor/priest/whatever are involved in this, and they can't have a priveledged relationship (legally speaking). Also the same for immigration law. Whether proper authorities have ENFORCED laws against religious organizations is immaterial (the state always has the option of non-enforcement). 2) Even if EVERY ONE of the people being so sheltered were to die in [El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, wherever], please explain how that would significantly alter the situation in [Central America, the US, anywhere else]. I doubt all the people in question ARE in such danger (although some may be), and besides, in countries where civil wars (revolutions...), claim multiples of tens of thousands (50K in El Salvador?), I'm still not convinced a significant improvement is being made. I strongly suspect that the entire operation is an attempt, not to engage in a humanitarian effort, but to force the government to change its Central America policy, which would be an unconstitutional attempt (although not an unusual one), to influence political affairs via religion. [yes, I know Falwell does it all the time, that doesn't make it right...] -JCP-
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/22/85)
> > > > Religions and their believers are not and never have been, > > above the law. > > > > Groups who wish immigration laws changed should write their > > congressmen, not break the law by smuggling in people from Central > > America (or anywhere else). And besides, what the hell do they > > think they're changing by smuggling in a few hundred people anyway? > > > > -JCP- > > In reguards to your above statements: > > 1. I would assume it's been a long time since you had a history course. > > 2. Maybe a few hundred deaths? > > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Well Rob, I can see you've put this guy in his place. But seriously, I think it's time you gave up this fascination with saving an extinct species. You know as well as I do, that the last surviving Bronto will soon be hunted down. -- DoomLord
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/22/85)
In article <7601@brl-tgr.ARPA> jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) writes: > I strongly suspect that the entire operation is an attempt, not to engage > in a humanitarian effort, but to force the government to change its > Central America policy, which would be an unconstitutional attempt > (although not an unusual one), to influence political affairs via > religion. [yes, I know Falwell does it all the time, that doesn't > make it right...] While it is unconstitutional for the state to establish religion, it is not in the least unconstitutional for religious organizations to try to affect or effect the legislation of laws and setting of policy. There are legal methods, ranging from lobbying to rallying, etc. And, of course there are illegal methods: concealing felons, bribery, assassination, etc. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (01/22/85)
> > Gee isn't it nice to see people responding to my comments by throwing > out random insults to my intelligence (its so USENET to do that...) I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence. I was trying to point-out that you seem to have forgotten some of the things that have happened in this country since the early 17th century. I will promise to try to use the :-) symbol in the future. > > Please show me the provisions of applicable federal law which > exempt [any] religious organization from the requirement to > promptly report known violations of law to authorities (you don't > get to use priveledged relationship, may people in these churches > OTHER than the pastor/priest/whatever are involved in this, and they > can't have a priveledged relationship (legally speaking). Also > the same for immigration law. There are many things done without the support of law. I don't think you can just dismiss church law. There are many that would hold that above federal law. > > Whether proper authorities have ENFORCED laws against religious > organizations is immaterial (the state always has the option of > non-enforcement). And the individual has the option of civil dis-obedience. > > 2) Even if EVERY ONE of the people being so sheltered were to die in > [El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, wherever], please explain how > that would significantly alter the situation in [Central America, > the US, anywhere else]. I doubt all the people in question ARE > in such danger (although some may be), and besides, in countries > where civil wars (revolutions...), claim multiples of tens of > thousands (50K in El Salvador?), I'm still not convinced a > significant improvement is being made. You might not feel that way if it were your life that wasn't "significantly alter[ing] the situation". > > I strongly suspect that the entire operation is an attempt, not to engage > in a humanitarian effort, but to force the government to change its > Central America policy, which would be an unconstitutional attempt > (although not an unusual one), to influence political affairs via > religion. [yes, I know Falwell does it all the time, that doesn't > make it right...] I don't want to turn this into something for net.religion, but I must once again point-out that there are many people that hold the "Law of God" (as interpreted by men, granted) above the "Law of Man". And then there are some who just can't do or support something they feel to be wrong. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jhull@spp2.UUCP (01/23/85)
In article <1266@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: ><followup to Joe Pistritto> > >Do you REALLY believe these churches are SMUGGLING in people?? ... >Haven't you heard of the "right of sanctuary"? ... >Finally, a number of the churches involved have a long & distinguished >history of conscientious civil disobedience, streching back to the early >19th century. For many Central Americans in the US, deportation means >almost certain imprisonment, torture, & death for political reasons. > > Ron Rizzo Hot Damn! I get to agree with Ron Rizzo. I never thought it would happen, but it has and I want you all to know it. Keep posting, Ron. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {ihnp4}trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (01/25/85)
>2) Even if EVERY ONE of the people being so sheltered were to die in > [El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, wherever], please explain how > that would significantly alter the situation in [Central America, > the US, anywhere else]. I doubt all the people in question ARE > in such danger (although some may be), and besides, in countries > where civil wars (revolutions...), claim multiples of tens of > thousands (50K in El Salvador?), I'm still not convinced a > significant improvement is being made. I suppose it wouldn't matter much to the situation in any country I can think of if you were to be shot either, but that is not the point. It is important to protect innocent life, and most of the people being saved are innocent or they would have fled to the revolutionaries. It seems to me that since you KNOW that 50,000 people we killed in El Salvarador alone (and that figure, by the way, is the number of civilians killed by the GOVERNMENT), how can you doubt that the people are in danger? If you really feel the only value a human being has is to be important to their country, mail me your adress and maybe I'll see about ending your worthless life. See? Put it in context (i.e., talk about YOUR death) and I'll be you are suddenly less interested in this way of looking at things. Think about the people there as PEOPLE. They are, you know. Most of them are caught between a military which would rather kill them than even think about doubting them and a revolution. They are butchered and dragged from their homes in the middle of the night without reason or warning and shot. If you had reason to think that would happen to you, you would run, too. The point is that the sanctuary people are protecting the refugees' lives. I would disobey most any law to save your life, and I'm sure if you saw me in danger you would do your best to save mine. Why aren't these people from Central America worth the same love and respect? Ken Arnold -- Ken Arnold ================================================================= Of COURSE we can implement your algorithm. We've got this Turing machine emulator...
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/27/85)
> Since when is it permissable for anybody, or any group of >people, (including any church) to violate the immigration laws of >the United States by illegally smuggling in aliens? In point of fact, >the government used proper enforcement techniques to verify the crime >and provide information leading to arrests under federal law. > > Religions and their believers are not and never have been, >above the law. > > Groups who wish immigration laws changed should write their >congressmen, not break the law by smuggling in people from Central >America (or anywhere else). And besides, what the hell do they >think they're changing by smuggling in a few hundred people anyway? > > -JCP- Sounds very like the arguments about people trying to help the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany in the late 30's. They, too, were legally kept out of many Western countries, as we are now finding out. Canada was a particularly bad example, but not the only one. (It's a bit late to note this, but Canadian readers might like to watch "Charlie Grant's War" on CBC tonight at 8:00). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (01/27/85)
From: jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) >In article <643@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >>> Religions and their believers are not and never have been, >>> above the law. >>> >>> Groups who wish immigration laws changed should write their >>> congressmen, not break the law by smuggling in people from Central >>> America (or anywhere else). And besides, what the hell do they >>> think they're changing by smuggling in a few hundred people anyway? >>> >>> -JCP- >>In reguards to your above statements: >>1. I would assume it's been a long time since you had a history course. >>2. Maybe a few hundred deaths? What about the laws of mankind? There's this good 'ol, one, which the first Americans failed to apply to blacks (or did they not consider blacks to be men?) which says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, being endowed by their Creator ..." Someone mentioned the abolitionist movement, which in fact was against the law (which was as stated, the right for man to own other men, and to use them until such a time as they could obtain their freedom through some sort of payment, or dismissal), but is in accordance with what is stated in the Consitution ("secure the blessings of liberty ..."). This can also be applied to the smuggling of Poles into France and Switzerland late in the European theater of WWII. There are times when some things must be done, *even if* they violate stated laws, so that men may be free. -- Baby tie your hair back in a long white bow ... Meet me in the field, behind the dynamo ... Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
marsh@enmasse.UUCP (Marshall Glassner) (02/01/85)
In article <1097@houxm.UUCP> gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >From: jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) > >>In article <643@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >>>> Religions and their believers are not and never have been, >>>> above the law. >>>> >>>> Groups who wish immigration laws changed should write their >>>> congressmen, not break the law by smuggling in people from Central >>>> America (or anywhere else). And besides, what the hell do they >>>> think they're changing by smuggling in a few hundred people anyway? >>>> >>>> -JCP- >>>In reguards to your above statements: >>>1. I would assume it's been a long time since you had a history course. >>>2. Maybe a few hundred deaths? > >What about the laws of mankind? >Greg Skinner (gregbo) >{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo There is no law of mankind! There are scores of countries with millions of rules, each which defines the rights of citizens. I would hesitate to assemble even the best (and don't ask me what that is) of these rules and call them the laws of mankind. Individuals make choices and, in cases of smuggling illegal immigrants, know the risks. Often these people become heroes; through their arrests, they publicize their beliefs. But the government, on behalf of all those people who do not break the laws and perhaps suffer for it, sets a dangerous precedent if it were not to prosecute these people to its fullest extent.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/02/85)
> Since when is it permissable for anybody, or any group of >people, (including any church) to violate the immigration laws of >the United States by illegally smuggling in aliens? In point of fact, >the government used proper enforcement techniques to verify the crime >and provide information leading to arrests under federal law. > > Religions and their believers are not and never have been, >above the law. >> I am sure that these people would agree with you, they are *not* above the law. They just feel that it is their *moral* duty to help those in danger of their lives, regardless of *any* consideration, and regardless of any cost to themselves. I support them, and hope I would have as much courage. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (02/06/85)
> Groups who wish immigration laws changed should write their > congressmen, not break the law by smuggling in people from Central > America (or anywhere else). And besides, what the hell do they > think they're changing by smuggling in a few hundred people anyway? > > -JCP- I suppose they feel they are helping those people. In some circles helping people is considered a good thing to do.
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/06/85)
> > There is no law of mankind! There are scores of countries with > millions of rules, each which defines the rights of citizens. > I would hesitate to assemble even the best (and don't ask me what > that is) of these rules and call them the laws of mankind. > > Individuals make choices and, in cases of smuggling illegal > immigrants, know the risks. Often these people become heroes; > through their arrests, they publicize their beliefs. But > the government, on behalf of all those people who do not break > the laws and perhaps suffer for it, sets a dangerous precedent > if it were not to prosecute these people to its fullest extent. That is true. However the question is whether the government itself is not breaking the law passed around 1979 which provided asylum for refugees from political persecution and human rights abuses. Is asylum for political refugees *only* to be provided for those who flee leftist dictatorships? This is the argument that some of the religious sanctuary groups are making. If the government decides that "freedom of the press" only applies to right wing publications, does that mean that a given Administrations interpretation of the law is necessarily correct and equivalent to the law? It is up to the Courts to decide whether the law which provides for refuge from political persecution *only* applies to refugees from leftist countries. Unfortunately with the present Supreme Court one can never be sure what they will decide. If they cannot discern that it was Congress' intent that Title IX would provide for the cutoff of *all* funds to Colleges that discriminate against women, despite evidence from Committee hearings and so forth, then one can never be sure how they will interpret current refugee law. tim sevener whuxl!orb