Church of Scientology Opposes Kate's Law

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Church of Scientology Opposes Kate's Law.

[NOTE: Kates Law is named for Kate Steinle. Steinle was shot and killed by an undocumented alien. The alien had been deported five times but returned to the US.]

ACLU OPPOSES S. 2193, KATE'S LAW

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-opposes-s-2193-kates-law

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

ACLU OPPOSES S. 2193, KATE'S LAW

The ACLU opposes Kate’s Law because it will create a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for those who illegally reenter the country after removal.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Below is the Letter from above link and also found at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/all/libr...cument/s_2193_opposition_letter_july_2016.pdf

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

July 6, 2016

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
U.S. Senate
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Harry Reid
U.S. Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Charles Grassley
U.S. Senate
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senate
437 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

RE: S. 2193, Kate’s Law

Dear Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Reid, Chairman Grassley,and Ranking Member Leahy:

The undersigned organizations working to reform the criminal justice system respectfully write to express our opposition to S. 2193, known as “Kate’s Law,” which has been scheduled for a floor vote this week. We oppose Kate’s Law because it will produce unjust results, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, fail to fix America’s flawed immigration system, and endanger public safety. This year in Congress and in states across the nation, there has been unprecedented bipartisan support for and action to repealor reform mandatory minimum sentencing laws. States as varied as Oklahoma, Maryland, Florida, and Iowa have reduced or eliminated mandatory minimum sentencesthis year. Multiple bipartisan bills introduced in both Houses of Congress would scale back federal mandatory minimum sentences,increase fairness, reduce costs, and focus limited Justice Department dollars where they are needed most. We applaud your leadership on sentencing reform.

Given this historic and bipartisan consensus in support of reform, we believe passage of Kate’s Law would be counterproductive and undermine the important progress you have made. While well-intentioned, Kate’s Law is an ultimately shortsighted and ill-conceived response to the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco in July2015. The bill would create a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for those who violate 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by illegally reentering the country after removal, if the person has a prior aggravated felony conviction or two prior convictions for illegal reentry. While passing such a law may sound or feel productive, it would not have saved Kate Steinle’s life had it existed at the time of her death. A new mandatory minimum sentence will not stop illegal reentry any more than mandatory minimum drug sentences have stopped the opioid health crisis impacting our country now. We cannot incarcerate our way out of this country’s drug problems, or its immigration problems.

The five-year mandatory minimum prison term in Kate’s Law would apply to thousands of the 20,000 people convicted of illegal reentry offenses and sentenced in federal courts every year. Put bluntly, this would be catastrophic to America’s public safety priorities. Estimated conservatively, Kate’s Law would cost taxpayers $3.1billion over the next 10 years just for people with a prior aggravated felony conviction – and require the construction of 9new federal prisons at even additional costs. These costs would far outweigh any savings achievable from enacting the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (S. 2123) or even broader alternatives introduced in this Congress. Prisons already consume a quarter of the Justice Department’s budget, depleting funding for law enforcement, victim services, and crime prevention. Kate’s Law would consume even more of these scarce resources – resources that would be better invested in state and local law enforcement, anti-terrorism efforts, or more sensible immigration enforcement and reform. Money to pay for Kate’s Law is nowhere to be found in our already stretched public safety budget, and the proposal promises little public safety return on such an enormous investment.

Most importantly, Kate’s Law will hurt the American economy, harm families and children, and produce unjust results – as all mandatory minimum sentences inevitably do. The five-year minimum prison term would apply to a person with a prior aggravated felony conviction, which includes everything from murder to theft or failing to appear in court. The mandatory minimum term would apply regardless of the nature or circumstances of the prior offense, or the person’s future dangerousness. The five-year mandatory minimum sentence would also apply to people with two prior illegal reentry convictions. These might be people who have no other conviction history, but have repeatedly come here to work in order to provide for a family and contribute to the economy. Kate’s Law would penalize people equally whether they entered the country to commit a terrorist attack, attend a loved one’s funeral,donate an organ to a dying child, or flee religious persecution, war, or natural disasters.

There are serious problems with our immigration system that must be addressed, but Kate’s Law will not fix them. Getting more people working here legally is good for business, the economy, and free markets. Indiscriminately imprisoning large portions of those who have illegally reentered the country for at least five years will negate the benefits of any other criminal justice reforms Congress may enact, do nothing to enhance border security or implement humane and sensible immigration reforms, and will increase the burden on taxpayers and law enforcement without increasing public safety.

We urge you to oppose Kate’s Law and adopt common sense reformsthat move away from mandatory sentencing, as more than 30 states havedone. Thank you for your leadership on criminal justice reform, and thank you for considering our views.If you have any questions, please contact Molly Gill at [email protected] (202) 822-6700.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union
Bread for the World
Capital Area Immigrants’Rights Coalition
Church of Scientology National Affairs Office
Drug Policy Alliance
DC Reentry Task Force
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
FAMM
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Grassroots Leadership
Human Rights Watch
Interfaith Action for Human Rights
Justice Strategies
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Council of Churches, USA
National Council of Jewish Women
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
StoptheDrugWar.org
The Constitution Project
T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

cc: The Honorable Ted Cruz

* * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *

View attachment ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw.pdf

EDITED TO ADD:

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-1.jpg
    ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-1.jpg
    156.6 KB · Views: 183
  • ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-2.jpg
    ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-2.jpg
    152.8 KB · Views: 181
  • ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-3.jpg
    ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-3.jpg
    130.7 KB · Views: 178
Last edited:

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Gotta wonder why the CoS opposes this law. I mean if the cult messes up and lets a SO slave just overstay a visa, it's a mandatory 10 year ban to re-enter the USA. Deportation is a permanent ban. I could see them fighting against the 10 year ban, but this? Would the cult try to sneak someone back in the country after being deported? I can't imagine anybody would be important enough to risk it.

Gotta wonder what the end game is, probably a quid pro quo. I'd guess they made a deal to support this in exchange for some of these groups backing one of their pet projects.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Gotta wonder why the CoS opposes this law. I mean if the cult messes up and lets a SO slave just overstay a visa, it's a mandatory 10 year ban to re-enter the USA. Deportation is a permanent ban. I could see them fighting against the 10 year ban, but this? Would the cult try to sneak someone back in the country after being deported? I can't imagine anybody would important enough to risk it.
I believe the Church of Scientology opposed Kates Law at the request of the ACLU and the other civil rights and religious groups that oppose it, and in order to bolster its religious and civil rights bona fides. The Church of Scientology is investing in its relationships with the other co-signers to the letter.

The Church of Scientology would never sneak anyone across the border who had been deported. This is about the larger picture.

EDITED TO ADD:

In other words, the Church of Scientology is playing the long game. It is investing in reputational capital and building alliances.

Think about it. As we've seen, the Church of Scientology has very recently had problems in Kazakhstan, Russia and now Germany. Do you think that the ACLU or any other signatory to the above letter will refuse the Church of Scientology if the Church of Scientology asks for similar support, a similar letter, with respect to Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany, or any other attack on its "religious" status?
 
Last edited:

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
I believe the Church of Scientology opposed Kates Law at the request of the ACLU and the other civil rights and religious groups that oppose it, and in order to bolster its religious and civil rights bona fides. The Church of Scientology is investing in its relationships with the other co-signers to the letter.

The Church of Scientology would never sneak anyone across the border who had been deported. This is about the larger picture.

I find this really hard to believe given the cult's past and present actions, maybe/maybe no, but when one considers the depths to which CoS has stooped in such areas as 'religious visas', student loans, holding people's passports, and a myriad of forgone dismal actions, who knows :confused2: Is it such a stretch that such a criminal organization might need an 'outsider' for a bit o' dirty work here and there? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, but that is just my own personal opinion. As for the 'Kate's Law' thing, hmm, me thinking cult will jump on any band-wagon opposing laws which in some way ,shape, or form, affect them somewhere down the road. Call me crazy, just a hunch :unsure:
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
I find this really hard to believe given the cult's past and present actions, maybe/maybe no, but when one considers the depths to which CoS has stooped in such areas as 'religious visas', student loans, holding people's passports, and a myriad of forgone dismal actions, who knows :confused2: Is it such a stretch that such a criminal organization might need an 'outsider' for a bit o' dirty work here and there? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, but that is just my own personal opinion. As for the 'Kate's Law' thing, hmm, me thinking cult will jump on any band-wagon opposing laws which in some way ,shape, or form, affect them somewhere down the road. Call me crazy, just a hunch :unsure:
Honestly, no.

The Church of Scientology doesn't give a crap about the merits of Kate's Law. No, the Church of Scientology is NOT going to sneak in a previously deported person "for a bit o' dirty here and there.' That would be completely nuts. Further, they certainly wouldn't be opposing Kate's Law based on such a remote contingency. Finally, quite frankly they don't need to. The have enough disposable assets in the U.S.

The Church of Scientology is playing the long game. It is investing in reputational capital and building alliances. Think about it. As we've seen, the Church of Scientology has very recently had problems in Kazakhstan, Russia and now Germany. Do you think that the ACLU or any other signatory to the above letter will refuse the Church of Scientology if the Church of Scientology asks for similar support, a similar letter, with respect to Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany, or any other attack on its "religious" status?
 

Adam7986

Declared SP
I believe the Church of Scientology opposed Kates Law at the request of the ACLU and the other civil rights and religious groups that oppose it, and in order to bolster its religious and civil rights bona fides. The Church of Scientology is investing in its relationships with the other co-signers to the letter.

The Church of Scientology would never sneak anyone across the border who had been deported. This is about the larger picture.

EDITED TO ADD:

In other words, the Church of Scientology is playing the long game. It is investing in reputational capital and building alliances.

Think about it. As we've seen, the Church of Scientology has very recently had problems in Kazakhstan, Russia and now Germany. Do you think that the ACLU or any other signatory to the above letter will refuse the Church of Scientology if the Church of Scientology asks for similar support, a similar letter, with respect to Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany, or any other attack on its "religious" status?

We had people on staff in the early 2000s with expired Visas left and right. Scientology doesn't care. They even had plans to shuffle them around if they became a problem.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
Honestly, no.

The Church of Scientology doesn't give a crap about the merits of Kate's Law. No, the Church of Scientology is NOT going to sneak in a previously deported person "for a bit o' dirty here and there.' That would be completely nuts. Further, they certainly wouldn't be opposing Kate's Law based on such a remote contingency. Finally, quite frankly they don't need to. The have enough disposable assets in the U.S.

The Church of Scientology is playing the long game. It is investing in reputational capital and building alliances. Think about it. As we've seen, the Church of Scientology has very recently had problems in Kazakhstan, Russia and now Germany. Do you think that the ACLU or any other signatory to the above letter will refuse the Church of Scientology if the Church of Scientology asks for similar support, a similar letter, with respect to Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany, or any other attack on its "religious" status?

I tend to agree. Today's OSA does not resemble the Guardian's Office. OSA uses PIs hired by lawyers. They don't get their hands dirty. They don't need to protect convicted criminals. They don't want particularly want them.

If they had a strategic need for something like this, we would have seen evidence on this board. We've never heard of Scientologists being deported, or even threatened with deportation.

We have seen them join forces with religious or political organizations and individuals for political gain.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
We have seen them join forces with religious or political organizations and individuals for political gain.
I agree.

Then again, one wonders if there is any downside politically in opposing an effort to strengthen U.S. immigration law given today's terrorist attack.

Not that anyone would make that an issue, of course.
 
Last edited:

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Church of Scientology Opposes Kate's Law.

[NOTE: Kates Law is named for Kate Steinle. Steinle was shot and killed by an undocumented alien. The alien had been deported five times but returned to the US.]

ACLU OPPOSES S. 2193, KATE'S LAW

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-opposes-s-2193-kates-law

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

ACLU OPPOSES S. 2193, KATE'S LAW

The ACLU opposes Kate’s Law because it will create a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for those who illegally reenter the country after removal.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Below is the Letter from above link and also found at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/all/libr...cument/s_2193_opposition_letter_july_2016.pdf

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

July 6, 2016

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
U.S. Senate
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Harry Reid
U.S. Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Charles Grassley
U.S. Senate
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senate
437 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

RE: S. 2193, Kate’s Law

Dear Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Reid, Chairman Grassley,and Ranking Member Leahy:

The undersigned organizations working to reform the criminal justice system respectfully write to express our opposition to S. 2193, known as “Kate’s Law,” which has been scheduled for a floor vote this week. We oppose Kate’s Law because it will produce unjust results, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, fail to fix America’s flawed immigration system, and endanger public safety. This year in Congress and in states across the nation, there has been unprecedented bipartisan support for and action to repealor reform mandatory minimum sentencing laws. States as varied as Oklahoma, Maryland, Florida, and Iowa have reduced or eliminated mandatory minimum sentencesthis year. Multiple bipartisan bills introduced in both Houses of Congress would scale back federal mandatory minimum sentences,increase fairness, reduce costs, and focus limited Justice Department dollars where they are needed most. We applaud your leadership on sentencing reform.

Given this historic and bipartisan consensus in support of reform, we believe passage of Kate’s Law would be counterproductive and undermine the important progress you have made. While well-intentioned, Kate’s Law is an ultimately shortsighted and ill-conceived response to the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco in July2015. The bill would create a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for those who violate 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by illegally reentering the country after removal, if the person has a prior aggravated felony conviction or two prior convictions for illegal reentry. While passing such a law may sound or feel productive, it would not have saved Kate Steinle’s life had it existed at the time of her death. A new mandatory minimum sentence will not stop illegal reentry any more than mandatory minimum drug sentences have stopped the opioid health crisis impacting our country now. We cannot incarcerate our way out of this country’s drug problems, or its immigration problems.

The five-year mandatory minimum prison term in Kate’s Law would apply to thousands of the 20,000 people convicted of illegal reentry offenses and sentenced in federal courts every year. Put bluntly, this would be catastrophic to America’s public safety priorities. Estimated conservatively, Kate’s Law would cost taxpayers $3.1billion over the next 10 years just for people with a prior aggravated felony conviction – and require the construction of 9new federal prisons at even additional costs. These costs would far outweigh any savings achievable from enacting the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (S. 2123) or even broader alternatives introduced in this Congress. Prisons already consume a quarter of the Justice Department’s budget, depleting funding for law enforcement, victim services, and crime prevention. Kate’s Law would consume even more of these scarce resources – resources that would be better invested in state and local law enforcement, anti-terrorism efforts, or more sensible immigration enforcement and reform. Money to pay for Kate’s Law is nowhere to be found in our already stretched public safety budget, and the proposal promises little public safety return on such an enormous investment.

Most importantly, Kate’s Law will hurt the American economy, harm families and children, and produce unjust results – as all mandatory minimum sentences inevitably do. The five-year minimum prison term would apply to a person with a prior aggravated felony conviction, which includes everything from murder to theft or failing to appear in court. The mandatory minimum term would apply regardless of the nature or circumstances of the prior offense, or the person’s future dangerousness. The five-year mandatory minimum sentence would also apply to people with two prior illegal reentry convictions. These might be people who have no other conviction history, but have repeatedly come here to work in order to provide for a family and contribute to the economy. Kate’s Law would penalize people equally whether they entered the country to commit a terrorist attack, attend a loved one’s funeral,donate an organ to a dying child, or flee religious persecution, war, or natural disasters.

There are serious problems with our immigration system that must be addressed, but Kate’s Law will not fix them. Getting more people working here legally is good for business, the economy, and free markets. Indiscriminately imprisoning large portions of those who have illegally reentered the country for at least five years will negate the benefits of any other criminal justice reforms Congress may enact, do nothing to enhance border security or implement humane and sensible immigration reforms, and will increase the burden on taxpayers and law enforcement without increasing public safety.

We urge you to oppose Kate’s Law and adopt common sense reformsthat move away from mandatory sentencing, as more than 30 states havedone. Thank you for your leadership on criminal justice reform, and thank you for considering our views.If you have any questions, please contact Molly Gill at [email protected] (202) 822-6700.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union
Bread for the World
Capital Area Immigrants’Rights Coalition
Church of Scientology National Affairs Office
Drug Policy Alliance
DC Reentry Task Force
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
FAMM
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Grassroots Leadership
Human Rights Watch
Interfaith Action for Human Rights
Justice Strategies
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Council of Churches, USA
National Council of Jewish Women
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
StoptheDrugWar.org
The Constitution Project
T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

cc: The Honorable Ted Cruz

* * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *

View attachment 12841

EDITED TO ADD:

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
Kate's Law passed by the House of Representatives despite being opposed by the Church of Scientology.

As noted above, the Church of Scientology opposes Kate's Law. Despite this, the Bill was passed by the House of Representatives.

Fox News: House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdown

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-law-as-part-illegal-immigrant-crackdown.html

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

House Republicans took action Thursday to crack down on illegal immigrants and the cities that shelter them.

One bill passed by the House would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities and another, Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.

Kate's Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed with a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.

Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday.

President Trump called the bill's passage "good news" in a tweet, adding "House just passed #KatesLaw. Hopefully Senate will follow."

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

**************************************************************************

Breitbart: House Passes 'Kate's Law,' Sanctuary City, Immigration Reforms - Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ates-bill-sanctuary-city-immigration-reforms/

**************************************************************************

CNN: House passes 'Kate's Law' and bill declaring war on sanctuary cities

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/29/p...uary-cities-house-bill-immigration/index.html

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

House passes 'Kate's Law' and bill declaring war on sanctuary cities

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Updated 2230 GMT (0630 HKT) June 29, 2017

Washington (CNN) House Republicans joined President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon in declaring war on sanctuary cities -- passing legislation targeting the cities' funding while hammering a message of the dangers posed by undocumented immigrants.

"Kate's Law" is named for Kate Steinle, a young woman murdered on a busy walkway in San Francisco two years ago allegedly by an undocumented immigrant who was deported multiple times. It would increase maximum penalties for undocumented immigrants who repeatedly enter the country illegally after deportation, especially with criminal records. It passed 257-167.

The "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act" would expand what is required of cities regarding federal immigrant enforcement and allow the government to deny jurisdictions federal law enforcement funds if they don't comply. It passed 228-195.


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 
Last edited:

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Scientology is aligning itself with decidedly left of center organizations on an issue that is expected to pass both houses, with bi-partisan support, and signed into law by the President.
It's an interesting move on their part; outside of California the public strongly supports Kate's Law, but the Democratic establishment opposes it.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Scientology is aligning itself with decidedly left of center organizations on an issue that is expected to pass both houses, with bi-partisan support, and signed into law by the President.
It's an interesting move on their part; outside of California the public strongly supports Kate's Law, but the Democratic establishment opposes it.
As I indicated above, I believe the Church of Scientology opposed Kate's Law at the request of the ACLU and the other civil rights and religious groups that oppose it in order to bolster its religious and civil rights bona fides. The Church of Scientology is investing in its relationships with the other co-signers to the letter.

As we've seen, the Church of Scientology has recently had problems in Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany and nor Russia (again and always). Do you think that the ACLU or any other signatory to the above letter will refuse the Church of Scientology if the Church of Scientology asks for similar support, a similar letter, with respect to Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany, or any other attack on its "religious" status?
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
As I indicated above, I believe the Church of Scientology opposed Kate's Law at the request of the ACLU and the other civil rights and religious groups that oppose it in order to bolster its religious and civil rights bona fides. The Church of Scientology is investing in its relationships with the other co-signers to the letter.

As we've seen, the Church of Scientology has recently had problems in Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany and nor Russia (again and always). Do you think that the ACLU or any other signatory to the above letter will refuse the Church of Scientology if the Church of Scientology asks for similar support, a similar letter, with respect to Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany, or any other attack on its "religious" status?

Yes, they could withhold support if they each could be presented with the lists of suicides, bankruptcies, illegal detainment, Vexatious litigant and similar activities by the cult
Of course such a presentation should include near the beginning exposing the strategy of hubbard to safe point and to fair game.

I haven't read it but I believe Steve Cannanes book would be of assistance in pointing out the criminality of the cult. Judges decisions and opinions might be a good section also.

Perhaps a working draft thread here on ESMB would help to bring together the probable overall content then someone(s) who are excellent researchers, librarians and writers could do a 'white paper'. No reason to keep it a secret. There certainly is enough material avaliable and the result could be an ESMB reference.

The reference could also be linked to by the apparent hugely increasing public interest individuals who are becoming aware of the real nature of scientology as exposed on A&E and so many other media over the recent decades.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
The Church is well known for playing fast and loose with sneaking American and other staff to Saint Hill regardless of a specific ban. None of this should surprise anyone. I think the Church would be fundamentally opposed on principle to anything that could be interpreted as contributing to an ongoing process of strengthening immigration enforcement.

US church attendance has been declining for years. I think all denominations have been counting on bolstering their membership with illegal and legal immigration. Plus they receive millions in government funds to provide legal and social type services to all migrants, legal or illegal.

I think any church where the senior or central authority openly supports Kate's Law is probably in the minority.
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
As I indicated above, I believe the Church of Scientology opposed Kate's Law at the request of the ACLU and the other civil rights and religious groups that oppose it in order to bolster its religious and civil rights bona fides. The Church of Scientology is investing in its relationships with the other co-signers to the letter.

As we've seen, the Church of Scientology has recently had problems in Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany and nor Russia (again and always). Do you think that the ACLU or any other signatory to the above letter will refuse the Church of Scientology if the Church of Scientology asks for similar support, a similar letter, with respect to Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany, or any other attack on its "religious" status?

IIRC, the Family Research Council, a Conservative (anti-gay) Christian group signed a letter on behalf of Scientology in Russia. I'd hope the ACLU would have second thoughts about aligning themselves with either group, but who knows? Scientology has such an odious record on free speech, and the ACLU is a secular organization, but...
 
Top