William F. Buckley vs. Cardinal Mahony
Look at the Right go. Yet another salvo from the National Review shot across the bow of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Buckley’s conclusion is worth quoting in toto:
President Bush endorsed the House bill and asks the Senate to act on
it. He hardly understands himself to be rejecting the canon of
Christian behavior towards our fellow men by making the point that free
and independent societies have the right to prescribe immigration
codes, and need especially to reject such distortions of Christian
dogma and practice as invite the wrong kind of attention to appropriate
divisions between church and state.
It strikes me as a stretch to suggest that Cardinal Mahony’s call for civil disobedience, should the bits of HR 4437 he finds objectionable be signed into law, is meant as an attack on the right of “free and independent societies…to prescribe immigration code.” Likewise, no bishops have intimated that President Bush “understands himself to be rejecting the canon of Christian behavior towards our fellow men.” The whole canon? Bit much. The concern, I think, is just the part about the works of mercy.
But I should let the cardinal speak for himself.
(Be sure to read Mark Sargent’s post below, “Immigration Legislation and Moral Witness.”)
Of course, Mahony is absolutely right on this.
I do find myself wishing that he could work up this much passion for protecting the children in his diocese. He doesn’t seem to know when civil disobedience is a good thing (unjust immigration laws) and when it is a bad thing (hiding incriminating evidence from prosecuters investigating sexual abuse).
Nevertheless, props to the man who’s greatest accomplishment prior to this has been being even more inscrutable than Cardinal Law.
Mahony would be right IF the law did anything remotely close to what he claims (i.e., punishing anyone who provides social services that happen to be used in some instances by illegal immigrants).
But the proposed law does no such thing. It punishes only those who assist people to come to this country illegally or remain here illegally. It does not even arguably apply to someone who gives social assistance generally.
By analogy, if a law prohibited “aiding and abetting someone to commit a felony,” that law obviously would not apply to a soup kitchen that gave food to many individuals, some of whom happened to commit or to have committed felonies. It would apply only to an actual accomplice who helped commit the crime itself.
In short, Mahony has been given incompetent legal advice.
Are you an attorney? Read Mark Sargent’s post on the subject. This isn’t some fringe reading of the law. The added language simply doesn’t achieve what the bill’s authors intended. (Or say they intended.)
Who is not experiencing a breath of fresh air or relief that a U.S. Catholic bishop is speaking loud and clear on a justice issue? Seems almost nostalgic and is that not a comment on the Ratzinger era?
Yes, I graduated from Harvard Law in 2000.
That said, I’d like to back off just a bit from my previous comment. The law — not just as proposed but as it currently exists — may be broad enough to punish a few types of charitable activity, such as providing “sanctuary houses” that are directly intended to house illegal aliens. The new bill (absent the proposed amendment that would exempt charitable workers) could have been even broader in that regard.
That said, I still think that Cardinal Mahony was not well-advised to make claims like, “As written, the proposed law is so broad that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or administering first aid.”
As I read the plain language of the proposed bill, the mere act of offering a meal or administering first aid could not be construed as “assisting” someone “TO” be in the country illegally, any more than giving a dollar to a beggar would make you criminally liable for the fact that he later mugged someone.
I thought you might have a law degree. I appreciate your willigness to reconsider your earlier statement. Did you catch the bit in the bill about the death penalty?
Thanks. Are you referring to section 618? As I read it, the bill amends 18 U.S.C. 1546 such that if someone: 1) commits document fraud; 2) that is intended to further “international terrorism,” (the current law already punishes 1 and 2); and 3) that results in the death of one or more persons, then that person is eligible for the death penalty.
What do I think? Well, as a general matter, I’m not in favor of the death penalty. But at the same time, there are a lot of public policy issues that I worry about more than whether people associated with international terrorist plots get the death penalty. (E.g., health care, education, you can pretty much name any other issue).