Mediaboss Marketing

The bishop whose diocese sits on the stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border visited by Pope Francis last year is urging Catholics and elected officials to take action against a dark night of fear and uncertainty facing undocumented migrants currently living there.

Our border community knows the reality of a broken immigration system, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso writes in Sorrow and Mourning Flee Away, a pastoral letter published on July 18. In it, he condemns the militarization of our border and he calls for a moratorium on the deportation of non-violent immigrants until comprehensive immigration reform is enacted.

Bishop Seitz also announced the creation of a scholarship program for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, known as Dreamers, to attend Catholic schools, and he announced that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol officers would not be allowed on diocesan property without a warrant.

The letter, which the bishop describes as just the beginning of a deeper solidarity with the poor and excluded, comes as Texas prepares to implement a new law aimed at dismantling so-called sanctuary cities as the Trump administration moves forward with plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. In May, Catholic bishops vowed to continue fighting many Trump-backed immigration policies, and the mandate for a temporary working group of bishops focused on migration was renewed by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and archbishop of Galveston-Houston.

Bishop Seitz told America he wrote the letter because immigration is a topic that is on the minds of many in our country. Sometimes it feels like the narrative of those who say that immigration is the cause of every problem in our country and that the border is a fearful place seems to be winning out.

In reality, he writes in his pastoral letter, the border is beautiful, rich in history and culture, faith and natural wonder.

This is a place where people of many cultures, languages and nationalities coexist and thrive, Bishop Seitz said. I ask lawmakers and policymakers in other parts of the country to end the demonization of our border, our border residents and migrants.

He said that people living in his diocese tell him that fear among immigrant communities living on the border is on the rise.

Discussing the plight of contemporary undocumented immigrants, he said, Theyre afraid every time they leave home, even to come to church sometimes.

I was approached by a number of teachers, not only from our area but beyond, asking for advice: What do I tell my children who come to school crying, fearful that their parents wont be there when I return from school? They said that theyre even seeing kids having panic attacks and things like that.

Its a very real fear, he added.

Much of the 13-page letter is addressed to El Paso Catholics directly. As your pastor, I cannot ignore the stumbling block of a system that causes so much suffering among Gods people, the bishop writes. Misguided policies and walls are widening the divide between us and our sister city of Ciudad Juarez, deportations are separating parents from children, and harsh political rhetoric is causing fear in our parishes and neighborhoods.

He calls on priests and parishioners to fight the evil of family separation and the expansion of for-profit detention centers, promoted by the president in an executive order issued in January. Bishop Seitz also talks about the need to fight drug abuse, which has been linked to an increase in crime along the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as the mistreatment of asylum seekers and the disparagement of our Muslim brothers and sisters.

The Texas law that will punish cities and counties that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officers is set to go into effect on Sept. 1. According to the Houston Chronicle, the law mandates that local police inquire about immigration status during routine stops, and it levies fines and penalties on sheriffs and police chiefs who refuse to cooperate. Several counties are suing the state over the law, and earlier this year bishops in Texas voiced opposition to it.

Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark called efforts by the Trump administration to crack down on sanctuary cities the opposite of what it means to be an American.

In his letter, Bishop Seitz writes about the practical effects of the law, which he says would raise the spectre of a mass deportation force, and he writes the larger community will be affected, as undocumented immigrants may be too afraid to call the police to report crimes.

In the past undocumented people didnt feel threatened by local police; they felt they could report a crime if they were the victims of one, he writes.

Bishop Seitz, who was appointed bishop of El Paso in 2013, also offered something of a preemptive rebuttal to critics who might say the letter is too political.

There may be those who question whether in these reflections I am not substituting politics for the teaching of the Church, he writes. I answer that as a pastor my duty is to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

He stopped short of joining the so-called sanctuary church movement, in which some houses of worship have promised to shield undocumented migrants from immigration officials, writing that he would not offer false expectations of protection to those facing deportation. Several other Catholic leaders have expressed similar caution about the practice.

Bishop Seitz told America that the diocese lacks ways to protect those people who are facing deportation. Instead, he said, the diocese plans to train lay volunteers who will be part of a rapid response team prepared to help at-risk individuals navigate the legal system should they face deportation.

Were going to offer a course through our lay institute that trains people as advocates, he said. Part of that will be informing them about the protections that they have under the law, like the right to remain silent, that they dont have to let agents into their house without a search warrant and how to prepare families in case something should happen.

Part of the letter is aimed at individuals charged with carrying out federal immigration policy, officers on the front lines who are often nonetheless part of the local community.

Those who administer our nations immigration laws daily face difficult and sometimes dangerous situations, Bishop Seitz writes. I appeal to you, do not ignore the obligations of conscience! Treat all you encounter with dignity and respect and with the American values of fairness and justice.

Bishop Seitz said many law enforcement officers could become more torn about which orders to carry out as immigration policy becomes more extreme.

Many of those who work for border patrol and I.C.E. in our area are people who grew up in this region, and they tend to have a much more balanced perspective than someone who perhaps just doesnt know the reality of living on the border and how interdependent we are, he said.

He said officers facing moral quandaries about carrying out orders that might break up families should evaluate the situations as they arrive and some further prayer and conversation would be necessary to help each person in a particular area of responsibility make a moral decision.

During his apostolic visit to Mexico in 2016, Pope Francis celebrated Mass in Jurez, just across the Rio Grande from El Paso. Before that celebration, the pope faced the United States and silently prayed for individuals who lost their lives trying to enter it. A crowd of children in U.S. custody sat on the El Paso side of the river to pray with the pope.

Bishop Seitz said the situation has only grown more urgent since that prayer service.

Theres much more fear now and many more threats, he said. We were aware that [the Obama administration was] deporting more people than anybody else before them, but at least in general people felt a lot more safe if they were not criminals. Today, everyone feels threatened.

See the original post here:
El Paso bishop: Stop deportations until immigration is fixed ... - America Magazine

WASHINGTON -- It was Sen. John McCain that got Sen. Lindsey Graham started on immigration reform, Graham said in a news conference Thursday.

Graham, R-S.C., recalled that nugget in the news conference with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., where they announced they were making another run at trying to pass the Dream Act to provide a way for certain young immigrants who arrived or stayed in the country illegally to become legal permanent residents. McCain is recovering from surgery related to a brain tumor.

I got involved because when John ran for president in 2000, he wanted to fix a broken immigration system because he is from Arizona and he sees the down side of illegal immigration, said Graham, who with McCain and Durbin was part of the Gang of 8 that wrote a comprehensive immigration bill approved by the Senate in 2013.

Through his work with McCain on the issue, Graham said he has come to believe that resolving immigration is absolutely necessary for the countrys economic stability and security.

This problem will not fix itself, Graham said. He said the 11 million or so people in the country were able to come here because the country looked the other way.

Versions of the DREAM Act have been introduced over the years and failed to pass, although it has come close a couple of times. Durbin, who first introduced it in 2001, has been working at its passage for so long that Graham referred to him as the great grandfather of the DREAM Act.

The 2017 bill introduced Thursday would make eligible for lawful permanent residence, a step toward citizenship, young immigrants who are longtime resident, are graduating from school or have a GED, are pursuing higher education or serve in the military, pass background checks, can show they are proficient in English and know U.S. history and havent committed a felony or other serious crime.

The legislation was introduced with some urgency because a group of conservative attorneys general have issued an ultimatum to President Donald Trump.

Theyve demanded that by Sept. 5, his administration stop renewing or granting temporary deportation deferrals and work permits to young immigrants through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program authorized by former President Barack Obama.

If the deadline isnt met, the attorneys general have promised to try to end the DACA program in court, where they have a pending legal suit against Obamas attempts to expand the program.

Sen. John McCain (L) speaks with Sen. Lindsey Graham during a committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, United States, July 7, 2015. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque - RTX1JFBB (C) Kevin Lamarque / Reuters / REUTERS

The administration dropped its defense of the expanded programs, but Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly had said the existing DACA would remain.

According to media reports, the administration does not plan to sign any new DREAM Act legislation. McClatchy News reported that White House legislative affairs director Marc Short said the administration will likely oppose the Dream Act.

Contacted by NBC News for comment, a White House spokeswoman, who declined to comment by name, reiterated Trump's support for immigration enforcement measures. She referred to recent comments on DACA that Trump made to reporters on Air Force One.

Trump told the reporters that DACA is a hard decision. He said he'd like to "do" a comprehensive immigration plan, "but our country and political forces are not ready yet."

Graham used the press conference as a forum to nudge Trump along. He said Trump has the power to tell the Republican base "we have achieved border security" and in a snap his finger to get the Republican party more united on immigration reform than former presidents George W. Bush and Obama could.

What has changed? A man in White House who could take the people who object the most and with a coherent, from the heart speech, change everything, he said.

Follow NBC News Latino on

The rest is here:
Senators Make Another Run at Passing Dream Act for Young Immigrants - NBCNews.com

First Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States that is part of the Bill of Rights and reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The clauses of the amendment are often called the establishment clause, the free exercise clause, the free speech clause, the free press clause, the assembly clause, and the petition clause.

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only what the federal government may do and did not bind the states. Most state constitutions had their own bills of rights, and those generally included provisions similar to those found in the First Amendment. But the state provisions could be enforced only by state courts.

In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people liberty without due process. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually used the due process clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the 40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by federal, state, and local governments. The First Amendment also applies to all branches of government, including legislatures, courts, juries, and executive officials and agencies. This includes public employers, public university systems, and public school systems.

The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government action. As a result, if a private employer fires an employee because of the employees speech, there is no First Amendment violation. There is likewise no violation if a private university expels a student for what the student said, if a commercial landlord restricts what bumper stickers are sold on the property it owns, or if an Internet service provider refuses to host certain Web sites.

Legislatures sometimes enact laws that protect speakers or religious observers from retaliation by private organizations. For example, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans religious discrimination even by private employers. Similarly, laws in some states prohibit employers from firing employees for off-duty political activity. But such prohibitions are imposed by legislative choice rather than by the First Amendment.

The freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and to petitiondiscussed here together as freedom of expressionbroadly protect expression from governmental restrictions. Thus, for instance, the government may not outlaw antiwar speech, speech praising violence, racist speech, pro-communist speech, and the like. Nor may the government impose special taxes on speech on certain topics or limit demonstrations that express certain views. The government also may not authorize civil lawsuits based on peoples speech, unless the speech falls within a traditionally recognized First Amendment exception. This is why, for example, people may not sue for emotional distress inflicted by offensive magazine articles about them, unless the articles are not just offensive but include false statements that fall within the defamation exception (see below Permissible restrictions on expression).

The free expression guarantees are not limited to political speech. They also cover speech about science, religion, morality, and social issues as well as art and even personal gossip.

Test Your Knowledge

President of the United States: Fact or Fiction?

Freedom of the press confirms that the government may not restrict mass communication. It does not, however, give media businesses any additional constitutional rights beyond what nonprofessional speakers have.

Freedom of petition protects the right to communicate with government officials. This includes lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits, unless the court concludes that the lawsuit clearly lacks any legal basis.

Excerpt from:
First Amendment | Contents & Supreme Court Interpretations ...

Earlier this week, the ACLU sent a letter to members of Congress opposing the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. The bill would amend existing law to prohibit people in the United States from supporting boycotts targeting Israel making it a felony to choose not to engage in commerce with companies doing business in Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Violations would be punishable by a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

The bill is aimed at advocates of boycotts targeting Israel, most notably the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement a global campaign that seeks to apply economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with international law. Specifically, the bill sponsors intend the act as a response to the U.N. Human Rights Councils 2016 resolution calling on companies to respect human rights, including in occupied Palestinian territories.

No matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one thing is clear: The First Amendment protects the right to engage in political boycotts.

In fact, the right to boycott is one of the brightest stars in our constitutional firmament. The American Revolution was founded on boycotts against British goods to protest excessive taxes. John Jay led a boycott against New York merchants who engaged in the slave trade. And the Montgomery bus boycott of 19551956 was a major turning point in the struggle for civil rights in the Jim Crow South. In the 1970s and 1980s, colleges and universities led a widespread campaign to boycott and divest from South Africa, in protest of apartheid. In 2015, football players at the University of Missouri went on strike until the school addressed acute racial tensions on campus. And North Carolinas law prohibiting transgender people from accessing restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identities sparked massive boycotts by businesses and individuals.

Boycotts are a form of collective action that allows ordinary people to make their voices heard. For precisely this reason, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to boycott. The courts landmark decision in NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co. affirmed the constitutional right of NAACP activists to hold a mass economic boycott of white-owned businesses in Port Gibson, Mississippi, to protest the communitys persistent racial inequality and segregation. In ringing language, the court held that the boycotters exercise of their rights to speech, assembly, and petition . . . to change a social order that had consistently treated them as second-class citizens rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.

No matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one thing is clear: The First Amendment protects the right to engage in political boycotts.

This is a proud constitutional legacy. Today, though, the right to boycott is under assault. Over the past several years, federal, state, and local legislators have introduced wave after wave of legislation seeking to stamp out boycotts and divestment campaigns aimed at Israel. One such law, passed earlier this year by Nassau County in New York, prohibits the county from doing business with people who support the BDS movement. As a result, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame could be banned from playing at the Nassau Coliseum in New York. Similar laws have been passed in Arizona and Kansas.

None of them comport with the First Amendment.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act introduced in Congress goes a step further, threatening severe civil and criminal punishment against individuals who refrain from doing business with Israel because of their political opposition to its governments actions. The bill amends two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, which prohibit certain boycotts sponsored by foreign governments.

The bill would expand the application of those laws in a number of ways. It would expand the laws to prohibit boycotts called for by international organizations, like the United Nations and the European Union; it would threaten sanctions against people who boycott businesses operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories; and it would prohibit even requests for information about companies business relationships with Israel and Israeli companies. This expansive language would likely chill a wide range of political activity in the United States directed at the Israeli government activity that is constitutionally protected, regardless whether members of Congress agree with it.

A number of the bills sponsors were apparently surprised by the ACLUs free speech concerns with the bill. A number of them have now expressed their intention to review the legislation with the ACLUs civil rights and civil liberties concerns in mind. We hope they do the right thing by backing away from any bill that violates our First Amendment rights.

The rest is here:
The First Amendment Protects the Right to Boycott Israel - ACLU (blog)

Underneath the myriad political stories dominating the news sucking up time and energy like traffic on a Los Angeles freeway, a culture war ripples like an earthquake fault line underneath our feet. Religious liberty, however unpretentious and boring it may appear to be, remains a pressing issue on the importance of societal well-being. Last week, there was another victory for schools associated with all faiths.

Joanne Fratello was the principal of St. Anthony School. As such, she led students in religious activities such as prayer, mass, and encouraging religious-based curriculum. The school eventually did not renew Fratello's contract when they determined she was not advancing the school's Catholic values.

So she sued. Her lawyer claimed the school was not allowed to hire a principal who would promote the Catholic faith at St. Anthony School.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the school, announced that a New York court recently ruled St. Anthony School and the Roman Archdiocese of New York "can choose a principal who shares their faith." Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, said, "The court saw right through this blatantly anti-Catholic lawsuit, agreeing with the Supreme Court that the church, not the state, should pick religious leaders."

It was clear in the opposing trial lawyer's arguments he was vehemently opposed to religious freedom. He "accused the Catholic Church of being "dangerous to society," the Russian Orthodox Church as "indoctrinating children with Stalinist communism," and the Supreme Court's unanimous decision as an aid to "potential jihadists.'" Such rhetoric is not only divisive, even for a lawyer, but more importantly has no place in a court of law when the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In the decision, which went to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ignored the opposing counsel's illogical bluster and instead said there is historical precedent for this case when "a stammering Moses was chosen to lead the people, and a scrawny David to slay a giant." That a New York appellate court would cite centuries-old Jewish history for a 2017 religious liberty case should make any First Amendment fanatic's heart skip with glee even as it no doubt filled opposing counsel with disdain for religious history.

This aligns with a similar decision the Supreme Court unanimously decided five years ago, when the state tried to intervene with a Lutheran school about what kind of leaders the school could choose.

Even though religious liberty cases keep popping up in the court system nationwide, it's heartening to see (for people of all faith or no faith) that the First Amendment remains authoritative and secure.

That said, when cases like this, where a woman sues a religious school because she believes she was unlawfully fired because that school reserved the right to hire someone who promotes their religious values, reaches an appellate court, religious liberty advocates must remain vigilant.

Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator's Young Journalist Award.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read more from the original source:
Even in (religious liberty) victory, First Amendment advocates must ... - Washington Examiner