Your assertion that there was a history of violence is as reasonable as racial profiling. Both are examples of authorities prejudging a group because of the actions of some members.

I haven’t hear you question why this “young mother” didn’t wait for legal immigration or why she came here without child and had one while she was here. Seems rather convenient to me.

How moral is it to have a child while hiding from the authorities in a foreign country?

The consequences of status, credibility, honor, etc…fine.

The bill got sent to the wrong folks in this case. If I follow your argument about choosing the consequences right down the line, then should I also assume that females (and just to make it interesting, let’s say…sixteen year old females) who dress in fashion, which means tight jeans and tiny tank tops should be financially responsible for the hospital bill after she’s raped?

I really don’t think that’s what you meant, yet that argument leads to that conclusion. The thing is, the police were needed not because there was a protest. The police were needed because there had been a history of violence at Save our State protests in the past and there was no reason to expect that this one would be different.

When the City of Simi Valley sent that bill, they signaled exactly what they intended — that protests, no matter how vitriolic and violent they may be, are okay as long as the targets are illegal immigrants and they (at least appear to) recover costs.

I have yet to hear anyone comment on the question of the moral aspects of taking a 6-month old child away from his mother and taking a wife away from her husband to justify her deportation. Why isn’t she at least given a hearing and opportunity to get the proper paperwork since she’s married to a citizen?

I admire the church and it’s members for taking a stand. However misguided it may be, their intention is good. My contention is that for any action there are consequences and if the church chooses to make this stand they must be willing to suffer the consequences. Those could manifest in any many ways. Monetary costs, social status, public honor, loss of credibility, etc…

The point is that when anyone makes a conscious choice of civil disobedience, having the expectation of no consequence is naive at best. Surely someone in the church realized there would be a price to pay for this.

In this case I agree that charging the church is unreasonable and I can sympathize with their concern for what they consider a person in need. Don’t mistake that for agreement or approval of Liliana’s and the church’s subsequent disobedience.

In short, the church is not a victim of the protesters because they CHOSE their own road. They may be victims in regards to the city charging for services they normally provide free of charge to others.

She is a non-US citizen married to a US Citizen who is the mother of another US Citizen. She has been ordered to abandon her family. Under the definition of fugitive that you supplied, I will agree with you that she is a fugitive, but not from justice. From persecution, yes.

Where you really leap in logic, though, is when you ignore the fact that Liliana’s presence at the church was not the cause of the $40,000 bill. The cause for the bill was the Save our State protesters who showed up en masse with the goal of having immigration agents raid a church for the purpose of deporting one young mother and her child.

What’s wrong here is the idea that groups can stage violent protests (yes — violent…see the notes about injuries and pepper spray, etc in the original post) against a peaceful entity and the entity (who is the victim here) is billed for that cost.

She was caught by Border patrol agents entering the US 9 yrs ago, she came back. She has since been ordered deported. Rather than be deported she has sought “sanctuary” which by it’s very nature acknowledges she is fleeing the authorities.

That seems to be a very straightforward description of fugitive.

Liliana is not a fugitive. Please explain how you came to the conclusion that Liliana is a fugitive.

While their compassion is admirable, they should also be willing to shoulder the consequences of their choices.

Just wondering, do you always rant like this? Have you tried intelligent discussion instead?

It’s not acting above the law. You’d all think they were sheltering a mass murderer. The father is a citizen; so is the baby. The mother isn’t. The church is within its rights to provide a place for a homeless mother and child.

Please, those of you who think this church is acting illegally, can you tell me if you’re a) pro-life; and b)pro-family?

If yes to a) or b), how can you possibly accuse this church of wrongdoing?