Posted on 08/20/2010 4:02:22 PM PDT by NoLibZone
The illegal alien, Carlos A. Martinelly Montano, who slammed into a car carrying three Benedictine nuns, killing one of them, was being legally represented throughout his deportation process by Catholic Charities.
The wreck which occurred on the morning of August 1, took the life of Sister Denise Mosier, and left Sisters Charlotte Lang and Connie Ruth Lupton with serious injuries, marked Montano’s third DUI arrest in Prince William County, Va. over the last five years. At the time of the crash, the illegal alien was free on bond while awaiting deportation proceedings.
Montano was actually being defended by Hogar Immigrant Services, a division of Catholic Charities in the Arlington Diocese.
According to Catholic Charities, a deportation hearing was scheduled next week for Montano, but has been put on hold due to the involuntary manslaughter charge.
Given the Catholic Church’s unabashed support of illegal aliens, and their constant political lobbying for amnesty, it is more than a disgusting twist of irony that one of the criminals they were protecting has now taken the life of one of their own nuns.
While this facet to the sad case may seem particularly noteworthy, the mainstream press is simply ignoring it. Of course, they are pushing the same political agenda as the Church.
Catholic Church , and any other church should lose tax-exempt status over pro-illegal alien lobbying efforts.
What part of ‘illegal’ doesn’t the Catholic Church get? What part of the Constitution don’t they get?
Which explains why Church members immediately came out defending the illegal.
Good Lord.
What part of ‘illegal’ doesn’t the Catholic Church get?
Nun
LOL!! A good one. The truth no matter how you spell it.
Defending the indefensible is going to come back and bite HARD at some point.
Agreed. Notre Dasme and other supposed Catholic schools support the Imam and partial birth abortion.
Notre Dame should have a half time show where they sacrifice babies. As long as the team is up by 7 points - the alumni will cheer.
I hope there is no Hispanic Pope in the near future.
Communist infiltrated education lasts a long time.
if the church will turn their back on a nun in favor of an illegal alien, the church should lose their existence.
(1) Our Constitution guarantees everyone - not just law-abiding citizens - due process.
(2) It is an act of Christian charity to help not just well-scrubbed Anglophones but also scruffy Mexican criminals. Mercy is extended to all in Christ's name.
(3) Providing legal assistance to indigent criminals is something churches do and, to anyone familiar with the Constitution or federal law, it has no bearing on exempt status.
(4) Perhaps the sisters who lost their sister during this horrific crime have decided to forgive the criminal responsible. That also has something to do with the creed they profess.
(1) Our Constitution guarantees everyone - not just law-abiding citizens - due process.
The title of your question could be the title of a law school course. It’s a great question and it would make for a great class, book or law review article. But to answer your specific question, the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sections 1101 et seq.) permits the detention of persons unlawfully in the U.S. pending a decision on whether they may remain or must be deported, but it does not specify how long they may be held in custody. Regulations indicate that a detained person should be served with a Notice to Appear within a few days of being taken into custody, but this doesn’t always happen. As soon as someone is taken into immigration custody, someone (for example an immigration attorney) can request a bond hearing with an immigration judge for the detainee. The availability of such hearings varies based on the local court procedures. If the process.is taking too long then the person should speak with the immigration court administrator.
If the detainee is ordered removed from the U.S., the Immigration and Customs Enforcement is supposed to review his or her custody status 90 days after the order. If removal is not imminent at that point, then ICE should consider whether the detainee should be released on an order of supervision. The factors it will consider include the likelihood of imminent removal, whether the person is cooperating with the removal process, whether the person is a danger to him or herself or the community, and whether the detainee is a flight risk. If the detainee is held for more than 180 days post-removal order, the Supreme Court held in a case called Zadvydas that the continued detention is presumptively unconstitutional and the detainee can seek release in federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Scott D. Pollock
Scott D. Pollock & Associates, P.C.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-is-the-true-definition-of—due-process—for-i-224873.html
You believe that the you religious actions be forced upon non believers.
It is exactly what Thomas Jefferson warned us about.
No "religious action" was forced upon non-believers. Your statement is completely incoherent logically as well as grammatically.
And your citation of Jefferson is particularly inapt, given his analysis of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Mr. Pollock’s tone seems to indicate that he believes our immigration laws do not provide full due process. However, the process he describes is indeed due process - he apparently thinks our laws do not meet the Constitutional standard. I would disagree and say that our laws err on the side of leniency.
“Exactly the mindless comments I expected on this thread.”
What you have been taught as love for your fellow man, is shinning through in each post you make.
You make Jefferson’s point very well.
The death of those at the hands of illegals is the ultimate participation of your religious actions.
“Your statement is completely incoherent logically as well as grammatically.”
In other words, you feel you are superior.
Are you a Christian?
I see zero evidence of it on this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.