Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona Governor visits a controversial Tucson church
KVOA-TV - Tucson ^ | 5/10/03

Posted on 05/11/2003 1:31:20 PM PDT by Tancredo Fan

5/10/03 -- KVOA -- Tucson, Arizona

Governor Janet Napolitano surprised many by visiting a controversial church. St. John's just started a new program that aids illegal immigrants. Many wonder how this is legal?

Bishop Gerald Kicani and St. John's parish welcomed Governor Napolitano with open arms. Eager to show off their new program, called Casa San Juan.

Bishop Kicanis says, "We have a responsibility to attend to those who are most in need, and that's what casa san juan is trying to do."

The privately funded program answers questions about citizenship, how to access healthcare...but for many they just need help with basic human needs.

Director Aida Rios says, "They come in here, they can't afford to feed their kids pay rent cover their health with what they make."

Rios says many employers take advantage of illegal immigrants. She says "we're talking three dollars an hour, dishwashing, we're talking they work three months, and they don't even get paid they're fired, that's bad."

While some people think aiding illegal immigrants is wrong...what casa san juan is doing is not illegal. Because they don't provide shelter for illegal immigrants.

Governor Napolitano says she fully supports the program, even if it supports illegal immigrants. Napolitano says, "At this level it doesn't strike me as all that important, we have a border issues, but I think this is people. I think it indicates a committment to others that we need in Arizona."


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: crime; govcorruption; illegalimmigration; immigrantlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: dilpo
"I most assuredly did not know it from Matt Salmon or his campaign."

Well if ignorant citizens of the AZ voted for her not knowing these things about her then that is their responsibility, not Salmon's.

41 posted on 05/11/2003 3:01:50 PM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Of course you are correct. It is up to the individual voters to dig up the necessary information they need to vote, not to the campaigns of the contestants to highlight the important issues and contrast their positions on them. By this standard, Matt ran a fine campaign. I stand corrected. We have no one to blame but the ignorant voters.
42 posted on 05/11/2003 3:08:49 PM PDT by dilpo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dilpo
I doubt those two issues alone can explain why so many Republican women voted for her rather than Salmon...
43 posted on 05/11/2003 3:10:07 PM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: marajade
You don't get it. Those two issues merely exemplify the fact that he ran a lousy campaign. He was a wonderful candidate with great stands on the issues but his campaign did not get the message out. "Republican" women voted for Napolitano because she got her "women friendly" message out while Matt's campaign just blew it.
44 posted on 05/11/2003 3:19:19 PM PDT by dilpo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: marajade
The author stated that she didn't have any personal knowledge of any illegal immigrant... If my understanding of the law is correct, she is in compliance with the law.

The article says that this Bishop clown is aiding and abetting illegals, and that Nappy supports what he's doing. I did not accuse that lousy 'Rat of a crime, but you must have overlooked this part of the article: "Governor Napolitano says she fully supports the program, even if it supports illegal immigrants" . Nappy should be recalled based on that statement alone.

Furthermore, the author states that what the good Bishop is doing is not illegal, and that is clearly incorrect. It is illegal, and he and Rios ought to be locked up for their despicable activities.

45 posted on 05/11/2003 3:22:53 PM PDT by Tancredo Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Oh! On the lead article in this thread, the issue is not that Janet is breaking the law--she is not. The issue is that she is a profound hypocrite. On the one hand she blasts the Bush Administration for not controlling the border, while on the other hand she supports an organization whose activities encourage the illegal immigration she complains so loudly about. Hypocrisy, not illegality, is the sin.
46 posted on 05/11/2003 3:23:50 PM PDT by dilpo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dilpo
To be honest, as a woman voter I wasn't confident of my vote for him either... but being a solid Republican voter I pushed those doubts aside and voted for him...

Salmon tried to present himself as woman friendly but it just didn't come off because I really think it would have been disengenious for him to do so...
47 posted on 05/11/2003 3:28:00 PM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tancredo Fan
Supporting something is different than being complicit in it...

Why is the Catholic Church allowed to commit illegalities?
48 posted on 05/11/2003 3:29:08 PM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tancredo Fan
What would you have the Bishop do? Have a hungry man produce two forms of identification before he can get a loaf of bread? What he is doing appears to me more like unbiased compassion, not any concerted effort to break the law. And if there's a law that says a Bishop can't give a hungry man bread, then I hope he breaks it. The authorities clearly know where he is, and if they want to lock him up, then I suspect he'll go with them. But when a government tells the Church that it can't practice compassion, I call that tyranny.
49 posted on 05/11/2003 3:33:36 PM PDT by JaimeD2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JaimeD2
I guess now even religious leaders are supposed to ask people seeking food if they are US citizens...

Heck, I give people on the street money as handouts... I guess I'm now supposed to ask them if they are citizens are legal immigrants before giving them a dollar bill...

LOL...
50 posted on 05/11/2003 3:42:43 PM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JaimeD2
But when a government tells the Church that it can't practice compassion, I call that tyranny.

Are you suggesting that these churches do not have to obey federal laws? If these clowns are enabling foreign lawbreakers to remain here, I'd call that being accomplices in the commission of ongoing crimes.

51 posted on 05/11/2003 3:46:10 PM PDT by Tancredo Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Tancredo Fan
Yes, I am suggesting that churches may not have to obey federal laws. All laws against the innate rights of mankind are null and void, and charitable giving by religious organizations has long been understood to be inviolate. When a man is poor and hungry, a church will feed him, regardless of his immigration status, because many believe it their duty to ease suffering wherever they see it. That kind of compassion is above the jurisdiction of governments.

If you don't like illegal immigrants, then have the INS wait outside the church property and nab people approaching it - assuming they can get a judge to authorize warrants against them. But the answer isn't to jail people of faith for giving out food and water. If that's the avenue you want to go down, you're going to have to justify imprisoning a lot more people than one bishop.
52 posted on 05/11/2003 3:56:35 PM PDT by JaimeD2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Tancredo Fan
This is a problem.

I don't want to see anyone starve or suffer, that's not moral in the least and it can't be justified simply by virtue of their illegal status.

However, this is encouraging illegal behavior.. It's not a good idea.

We should feed them, put them on a bus and ship them out... And, imo.. save the most harsh penalities for the employers who try to cut corners by hiring them.

There are people who did the right thing, followed the rules and waited their turn to come here.. If we are going to be helping anyone, it should be them.

53 posted on 05/11/2003 4:41:32 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JaimeD2
It's folks like you who put BS before our sovreignty who are responsible for the millions of illegal alien sponges squatting in this country today. These pests are sucking state treasuries dry like ticks, and it's high time that they be ejected. Get a clue.

Anybody who aids and abets an illegal alien deserves nothing less than arrest and prosecution, amigo.

54 posted on 05/11/2003 5:13:48 PM PDT by Tancredo Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Tancredo Fan
Yes, this new governess in Phoenix is a major reason that I no longer have much faith in the people of AZ. My faith in them began to nosedive in 1996, when they joined the rest of the crazy country to endorse Bill Clinton!
55 posted on 05/11/2003 5:42:31 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
You THINK??!!?? LOL!!!
56 posted on 05/11/2003 6:53:37 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Rest assured; Butch will veto this so fast it will make your head spin.
57 posted on 05/11/2003 6:55:34 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Yeah; because they were afraid Matt would take away their precious right to murder their children; like a governor has that power!!
58 posted on 05/11/2003 7:02:20 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
I don't think that was the issue more than he didn't come across as someone who would be willing to listen to women or their specific gender needs... Like I stated, even though I voted for him, and did so feeling the same way they did and they voted for Janet.
59 posted on 05/11/2003 7:04:15 PM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
She's already vetoed other bills already... She can't veto them all...
60 posted on 05/11/2003 7:04:57 PM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson