Greg Siskind  is a leading immigration lawyer (and AILA member). For someone who appears to be bright he writes some awfully stupid blog posts, such as the latest called "Hero or Harborer?" :
[...discusses a Dutch woman who sheltered Jews during World War II as well as the Underground Railroad...] So what does this have to do with immigration? Because a lot of anti-immigrants are totally focused on the fact that unauthorized immigrants have broken the law and are also going after anyone who tries to help them. In the last Congress, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would have imprisoned people acting in a humanitarian capacity. Feeding or giving water to someone who has just walked through the desert - jail. Giving them a ride to the hospital? That would be unlawful transportation. Providing housing to a homeless unauthorized immigrant - that's illegal harboring. You get the picture.
Obviously, comparing those who are at the most economic refugees and who've paid smugglers to bring themselves here - or who've ignored the terms of their visas to stay here - to slaves and Jews during WWII should be beyond the pale. Just as obviously, for Siskind it isn't.
I'd also like to assume that he knows the details of HR4437 better than I do, however:
DNC radio ad lies about HR4437
Cardinal Roger Mahony admits to exaggerating about HR4437
Sensenbrenner to Catholic Bishops: please stop lying
CNN immigration poll misleads about HR4437
The Catholic Church's anti-HR4437 smokescreen (no soup kitchens here)
Soup Kitchen Watch
Churchmen, coyotes, and HR 4437
Will HR 4437 cause humanitarian groups to be prosecuted for giving emergency aid to illegal aliens?
UPDATE: Siskind himself leaves a comment. First, the part he quotes seems highly similar to current law, although there are probably differences. Second, Cardinal Roger Mahony said that under HR 4437 he might require documentation before giving Communion. However, he also said that was only "if you tease it out to its extreme". Indeed. In fact, I'm absolutely positive that about the only cases in which those who gave emergency aid would be charged would be if they did something else (like gave someone a lift to Chicago afterwards) or if an official was looking for a sneaky way to scuttle the law by creating public outrage against its application (see Chertoff's comments implying he would enrage the left.) Third, Sensenbrenner told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that he would work with them to mitigate their concerns (of course, I'm assuming they were just being disingenuous). Fourth, there's the matter of always asking for more than you want in negotiations: the final bill would have almost certainly have looked different from the original version. Fifth, a recent case that comes close to the scare tactics employed by Mahoney was thrown out, and in that case they appeared to go beyond just offering someone a glass of water:
And, finally, if the law were applied to innocent religious leaders who were only providing humanitarian aid, there would be so much public outcry that the law would be repealed. Concerns about this are completely baseless.
Immigration2007b · Sun, 11/04/2007 - 12:11 · Importance: 1