Posted by Carson on September 25, 2007 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So let me see. There are about 6 billion people out there and we have some Revolutionaries in the government that refuse to uphold their oaths of office and protect our borders.

Nothing is being done about the illegal invaders that have made it past the borders.

Many in the government seem to be acting as puppets of the bankers, like those that control the Federal Reserve.

Maybe that explains some of the foolish actions and spending.

The more handouts that we are coerced into giving to the 6 billion, the more money we borrow from the Federal Reserve. They get rich loaning money.

The rest of us get looted and then we all have to move onto the next country that has worked hard to make something of them selves. It should be easy pickings. The bankers that created the Federal Reserve seem to have been busy beavers since 1913 and may already have the politicians bought off there also.

Posted by NothingButTheTruth on September 25, 2007 at 1:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A fair and honest question would be: Is this (and others) church also hiding Asian immigrants or European immigrants or Cubans? Probably not and why not? Because there are more Mexicans violating the immigration laws and it's the "in" thing to do. We should not discriminate by holding "immigrants" from other countries more accountable than those from Mexico. Even the press calls illegal aliens "immigrants" to be politically correct. On tonights news people discussed how long (11 hours) they have to wait to get in to see a doctor at St. Francis Hospital in L.A. AND the cost. We can't even care for people on the U.S. side because taxpayers are paying for the "Iliana's" who want a U.S. born child to "use" as an anchor. Sorry church people, but that's just not honest nor fair to poorer American citizens needing care.

Posted by Freedom1 on September 25, 2007 at 4:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So once again those who break our laws win over those who try to enforce them and the taxpayers will ultimately pay the price. Good for you Rev. Goudey and the United Church of Christ for betraying the citizens of this community to support your own convictions. And, by the way, why would you need to call the police to arrest citizens who are voicing their opinions when you expect others to respect yours? Not very "God" like is it! Now ACLU take that one on if you dare.

Posted by heregoes on September 25, 2007 at 4:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How hypocritical of the church to call police when two men walk in to deliver a petition. Since when is it a crime to walk into a church. I agree with Freedom1, let's see the ACLU take on that case!

The church is breaking the law by harboring an illegal alien and the church is involved in political activism. They should not only be liable for the protest bill, but they should have their tax exempt status pulled.

Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 25, 2007 at 5:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course they will not be billing the Church of Christ in the future, and get this, they won't be successful in collecting on the first bill either!

The previous posts are predictable and expected. The City of Simi Valley will be compelled to back down on this blatant political stunt.

The City will be lucky if they don't get slapped with legal defense costs if they don't back off soon.

Posted by Nosmo_King on September 25, 2007 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love this line in the article.. "Liliana, an illegal immigrant from oxnard.." build a fence around Oxnard!

Posted by Nosmo_King on September 25, 2007 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is entering the U.S. illegaly considered trespassing?

Posted by Face on September 25, 2007 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What, now the church can have unlimited free carnival sideshow protests? Use your prescedent! This looks like a Carrot and Stick approach. Weasles are in the corn!

Posted by SimiProud on September 25, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I previously told you that June Goudey is not operating under the written Word of God. According to the written Word of God, she cannot be a pastor of a church. That being said, the church is "not a church" so there is no sanctuary. Arrest and deport the woman and her family. Remove the tax exempt status of this illegal entity NOW!

ACLU, where is your complaint about separation of church and state? Does this only work when you desire it to work? You're a joke!

Posted by SimiProud on September 25, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and feminists get off my case! I didn't write the Word of God. If you have a problem with God's instructions, and this one is a no brainer, complain to Him!

Posted by tobnerb on September 25, 2007 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NothingButTheTruth - The New Sanctuary Movement does not only help families from Mexico. They have sheltered (not hid) families from China, Haiti and Guatemala to name a few.

Posted by Jacksprat on September 25, 2007 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No matter where they come fro illigal immigrants are caught and sent back, except in Florida the ones from Cuba if they get on shore they can stay. this is because of the goverment not helping Castro. When we wake up and start trade with Cuba thing will change there. Look at China, now they have Big mac and al of the nasty stuff we have. What we need is to open trade and let them build a big Mac there and maybe even a Wal-mart that will change the goverment quick. May that is the trouble with Mexico, we need Wal-mart to open a store there and then they will all stay home. No need to come over the border to work for low pay at Wal-mart and buy the stuff comming from China

Posted by tobnerb on September 25, 2007 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jmcgaw3046 - There are over 100 Wal-Marts in Mexico.

Posted by Face on September 25, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SimiProud thinks that the modern Catholic Church is the only church? Whew boy....

Posted by cassandra on September 25, 2007 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SimiProud, I did complain to God. She said you're misinformed.

Posted by Freedom1 on September 25, 2007 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tobnerb - "sheltering: them from what? Deportation because they are here illegally? Because they don't have housing? What?

Posted by tobnerb on September 25, 2007 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freedom1 - Directly from www.newsanctuarymovement.org:

As an act of public witness, the New Sanctuary Movement will enable congregations to publicly provide hospitality and protection to a limited number of immigrant families whose legal cases clearly reveal the contradictions and moral injustice of our current immigration system while working to support legislation that would change their situation.

These families will be in the deportation process, include citizen children, have adults with good work records and have a potential case under current law. The Center for Constitutional Rights is working with a broad network of lawyers across the country to provide expert legal counsel and support to each family. Participating congregations will offer a family hospitality for a limited period; the family will rotate from one congregation to another as needed until their case is resolved. Because the family's identity will be public, the congregations will not be violating federal law.

Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 25, 2007 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Burgermeister Miller, and the City of Simi Valley are sooo certain that this woman is there illegally and that the church is breaking laws, then why doesn't a Simi cop go in there and make the arrest?

Could it be because that a church as an inherent right under law to provided sanctuary? It might not be California Code, but it is an inheritance of ours from the English Common Law our system of justice inherited and built upon. The Law recognizes the "right" of sanctuary and respects it. The law in Simi Valley has no choice but to do the same. Herr Oberst Miller CAN'T send in the cops can he?

No, he can just huff and puff and try to blow the house down. It's still just a bunch of hot air he's blowing.

The City WILL back down, and if they don't it will probably cost them some $$$$.

And gotta say...that "God's Word" thing...hoo-boy, that's a whole 'nother can o' worms!!

I don't know if the quote is an accurately attributable one, but I've heard it said that Mark Twain remarked "Man so Loved God...he created Him in his own image." Accurate or not..it fits.

Posted by JimmyM on September 25, 2007 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am truly amazed at the number of people who see this as an immigration issue and are oblivious to the direct assault on our First Amendment Rights. If Mayor Miller is successful in restricting the members of this church from expressing their opinions about illegal immigration you can be certain that he will expand this precedent against his political opponents in the next election and beyond.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."-Voltiar

.

Posted by lrgvanman on September 25, 2007 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am honestly uninformed about what a sanctuary really is for because for the longest time, until recently, I thought that sanctuaries were merely to protect, for example, political defectors and those who needed an emergency relocation due to political related burdens or hazards. Like the "Boat People" from Vietnam. They came here or it was death. Not the way this case appears as a blatant act of defiance of our nations laws. What really is wrong with this country's picture?

Posted by dailykos on September 25, 2007 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The sawywerfamily post shows no understanding of the law. The people that were detained by the police were told NOT to come onto the property but they did anyway. Then they did it again. They are allowed to stand on their own property or public property to express themselves. They just can't enter the church after being asked to leave.

I am amazed how a conversation about illegal immigrants has turned into an attack on female church leaders. I don't think Paul Miller meant to join such an extremist group.

Nothingbutthetruth has nothing but lies in their post. The church isn't hiding anyone. That is why you know about the story. ICE can and might who up whenever they want. The church announced Liliana was there.

If you know of an immigrant that deserves protection contact Ventura County CLUE. It isn't a racial thing except for people like you.

There is no law being broken. There is a law against hiding someone wanted by the law, but issuing a press release isn't the sneakiest way of hiding anyone.

Deport her family? How sick are you? They are proud American citizens. But since you don't think a church should be allowed to have a female pastor otherwise it isn't a real church how about we deport you.

It is clear that the government was trying to pressure a church to do what it wants even when there was no proof of law breaking. If some of you would actually look past your innate prejudices you would realize the ACLU is defending religion from government when they offered to stand up to the mayor.

Liliana doesn't need welfare. Her husband can support the family. Poorer Americans in Simi Valley have access to many services that Liliana has never sought nor asked for.

Posted by dailykos on September 26, 2007 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It looks like the secret is out. One of the reasons the church isn't getting hit by the people who support the mayor is because it is liberal. Some don't like women in charge. Tell me, being that the UCC type folk have much in common politically with many Jewish groups ( women leaders, sticking up for the rights of the oppressed etc.) does that make them liberal too? What about black churches? MLK must of been a big time liberal too. Oh wait he was. Nevermind.

What does their core beliefs have to do with if the police should protect them?

Many churches in Nazi Germany obeyed the rule of law. Lots of good that did.

Posted by UncleRico on September 26, 2007 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...the situation results from the lack of a firm, consistent federal immigration policy and the need for reform at a national level"? No it doesn't. The situation results from an out of control Mayor and compliant City Council who wouldn't know the U.S. Constitution if it came up and bit them in the rear. And since many of you seem to believe that a violation of the law is adequate justification for the bill (even though no charges have been made and no verdict has been handed down), why don't we all go demonstrate in front of the good Mayor's house and send him the bill for the extra police services? After all, he is inviting demonstrations by his public actions and it can be just as easily argued that he is violating the Constitution as it can be argued that the church is violating federal immigration laws.

Posted by mvieyra75 on September 26, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Any one for tennis?

Posted by moondoggie on September 26, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is going wrong with the Simi Valley City Council recently. First, they get mad at Councilmember Williamson for running with the landfill expansion issue, so they attack her Task Force rather than come out against garbage from Los Angeles coming to town. Then they go after the Church to pander to the far right before they learn the facts, including the law, then wimp out before the ink is dry on the invoice. What happened to having hearings, getting the facts, consulting with their attorney, and following the law? Somehow, one or all have short circuited. Perhaps political aspirations has taken over sound reasoning. How very sad for the City.

Posted by byteme on September 26, 2007 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry mvieyra75 I have to wash my hair

Posted by bugmenot on September 26, 2007 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This article, and subsequent comments, let's us know that the people that supported the $40,000 bill did so because of how strongly they feel on the immigration issues.

The city putting the "bill" on hold and their announcement that there will be no other bills is a sign that they realize there are legitimate first amendment issues.

Comments from the same people spewing the same rhetoric show to me that they felt so passionately about the immigration issue that they were willing to turn a blind eye to first amendment issues.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Little by little we are becoming an Orwellian society and all it would take is, heaven forbid, another 9/11 attack to turn the USA into a completely police state.

Posted by bugmenot on September 26, 2007 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Am I dreaming? Instead of binding international treaties.President Bush, according to a top administration officials, favors controlling global warming by letting each country "...make a contribution consistent with its national circumstances" Does he favor the same approach to nuclear arms control? Forget treaties. Should each sovereign state decide what it does with its warheads "...consistent with its national circumstances"? And is that why he is dissing the United Nations by holding a global warming meeting a the same time the UN is?

Am I dreaming? Are we, as the American Friends (Quakers) tally, spending 720 million dollars a day, more than 250 billion dollars a year on the Iraq war at the same time the President threatens to veto an additional 5 billion a year for children's health insurance?

Am I dreaming? Did Hillary REALLY say that she favors public funding as the only way she and her other campaigners can avoid taking tainted money from shady characters? Is her defense really "The others are doing it too"? And is that true? What does that say about the state of politics?

Am I dreaming? Was that Rudy Guiliani pandering to the National Rifle Association by saying he was for gun control when he was mayor but he's kinda not for it now? Or was that Mitt Romney on abortion?

Am I dreaming? Is that Chuck Schumer and the other Democrats rolling over and playing dead while the White House nominates for Attorney General a man who favors the Presidential power to indefinitely detain an American citizen? I'm talking about former federal judge Michael Mukasey, whose main qualification for the new gig is that he would be following a really really bad act.

Am I dreaming? Did the same airlines who put travellers through pure hell these last few months, actually report increased profits while doing so? Is that why we stay with this deregulated customer-be-damned system?

Am I dreaming, speaking of air travel, that nuclear armed missiles flew around this country, thanks to an almost comical series of blunders by the low level grunts who are given responsibility for all those "fail safe" assurances we get from our high level military leaders? You know: The ones that are supposed to protect us from annihilation.

Am I dreaming? I need to wake up. We all need to wake up."

Posted by SimiProud on September 26, 2007 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TO FACE99: I'm not catholic nor am I denominationaly based. You can just call me a follower/believer of and in Jesus Christ.

TO CASSANDRA: Maybe you should read it again. This time with your eyes open... 1 Timothy 2:12. Oh, and by the way, God is "spirit". This means that God is not male or female.

Posted by dailykos on September 27, 2007 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The bill is on hold? Dos that mean the mayor is saving face by not withdrawing it nor asking for the money? Is there still a threat if the church doesn't do what the government/mayor wants he can send it again?

I am not clear on one issue. Shouldn't the whole city council vote on this issue and shouldn't it be on the agenda? The issue must be dealt with, not simply left in the air as a threat.

I want to know what the other four feel.

Posted by imbetnonit on September 27, 2007 at 12:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So.....if I break the law, all I have to do is go to this church in Simi and they will take care of me and I won't be arrested? Sweet!

Posted by SimiProud on September 27, 2007 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The city council voted unanimously to send the original bill to the church and to the feds.

Posted by GODismyROCK on September 27, 2007 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1ST OF ALL-This is woman who has an infant. You want to separate her from her child. WHAT HARM IS SHE DOING SOCIETY? WHEN YOU SHOULD BE OUT THERE BUSY PROTESTING AGAINST HIGHER ISSUES-AGAINST VIOLENT PEOPLE WHO ARE FREE RUNNING THE STREETS. SO, LETS SAY THEY DEPORT HER, CAN YOU REST YOUR HEAD @ NIGHT NOW, KNOWING YOU JUST SEPARTED A FAMILY. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS PUT YOURSELF IN HER SHOES. ***THIS IS WHAT TICKS ME OFF..EVERYONE ACTS AS IF THEY NEVER WERE AN IMMIGRANT-EVERY SINGLE PERSON LIVING HERE WAS AT ONE POINT AN IMMIGRANT! DON'T MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM, THIS WAS not YOUR LAND. READ UR HISTORY. AND CALIFORNIA WAS MEXICO 1ST. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO PUSH FOR THEIR TO BE MORE OF AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE IN LILIANAS SITUATION TO BECOME LEGAL. AT LEAST GET HER TEMP. RESIDENCY AND A SSC TO BE ABLE TO WORK. MEXICANS ARE THE MOST HARD WORKING INDIVIDUALS I HAVE EVER MET. THEY WILL DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING TO MAKE MONEY. THEY DO ALL THE JOBS THAT US AMERICANS REFUSE TO DO. IF YOU KEEP KICKING THEM OUT, ARE YOU GOING TO GO PICK THE FIELDS, GET ON YOUR KNEES SWEAT AND GET DIRTY TIL THE SUN GOES DOWN??? I DON'T THINK SO. WHAT HARM WILL SHE DO TO SOCIETY?> THAT IS THE QUESTION!

Posted by JimmyM on September 27, 2007 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GODismyROCK

1. No one is going to stop Lillian from taking her children back to Mexico with her. So if she were to decide to leave them here it would be her that is breaking up her family not us!
2. I am not an immigrant! I am a third generation U. S. citizen. When my ancestors immigrated to this country there were fees to be paid, tests to be taken and medical exams to be endured. Those who did not follow the procedures were sent back to their country of origin just as those today who don’t follow the procedures should be sent back.

3. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 ended The Mexican-American War and gave the U.S undisputed control of Texas and ceded to the United States the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received US $15,000,000.

4. THEY DO ALL THE JOBS THAT US AMERICANS REFUSE TO DO… Why don’t you finish the sentence … FOR THE WAGES BEING OFFERED!
We have worked long and hard for wages and benefits that provide a high standard of living for everyone. Having an unregulated stream of immigrant workers who are willing to work under the table for low wages will reverse our past gains and lower the standard of living for everyone.

5. Finally and most importantly. “WHAT HARM WILL SHE DO TO SOCIETY?” – Lillian is representative of the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and collectively they represent a breakdown in the Rule of Law. The United States is a great country because it was founded on the rule of law and the concept that No Man is Above The Law. The idea of letting 12 million individuals circumvent the law strikes at the very foundation of our society. Once the precedent has been established who will be responsible for determining which laws will be enforced and which will not. Once the Rule Of Law has been breached our society can only degenerate and decay. That is the harm that Lillian represents to society.

Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 27, 2007 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW...so much shouting...

JimmyM:

1) You simplify and issue. Her Family is here, in the USA and they are not just her offspring, but also her American husband's.

2) Whatever, I'm a third generation immigrant of Swedish and Black Irish descent. But that was like 100 years ago...I'm not sure the sytem then is equivalent to the system now, and in any event the whole "migration" issue was entirely different.

3) That treaty came after a war of aggression by the USA against Mexico. Mexico lost. 'Nuff said.

4) Wages offered? Hmm...how about wages that keep your produce cheap, let you wash your car for 5 bucks. The "we" who have worked for higher wages and benefits are UNION workers...and UNIONS support humane policies about undocumented workers.

5) What Harm? Well you MORON Liliana is about the rule of Law, her case is in appeal, and she is residing in the Church while that happens. Liliana represents far less risk than the majority of people who are accused of crimes. She didn't hurt anyone, she didnt' torture dogs (like Micheal Vick), she didn't lead us into an unlawful war (like Cheney and Bush), she didn't cheat people out of life savings (like Enron), she didn't befoul the environment like Haloco..Heck she's not even a pedophile Catholic priest!

Get a grip.....this is one woman, her children...and her family.

Posted by a_citizen on October 29, 2007 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can a white nationalist or neo-nazi be a patriotic AMERICAN? I say no. What do you people say? I have never seen SOS leader Don Silva answer that question.