I wrote earlier that the proposed Alabama anti-immigrant bill outlaws modern-day Good Samaritans and actually empowers the thieves of the parable. The actual Good Samaritan Clinic is worried about impact of the bill and how the ministry would comply, as reported here.
A young construction worker came to the Good Samaritan Clinic in Tuscaloosa last month complaining of debilitating shoulder pain, which the clinic’s volunteer physicians diagnosed as a torn rotator cuff.
The clinic used donations from local churches and the public to arrange for the man, who spoke only Spanish, to have his injury treated at no charge by a local surgeon. Serving the poor who are uninsured and cannot pay for medical care is the mission of the Good Samaritan Clinic, said Julie Sittason, the clinic’s director.
The clinic served almost 1,000 patients last year, but if immigration legislation currently being considered in the Alabama Legislature passes, the volunteer staff at the nonprofit clinic could be committing a crime. . .
“To have to ask for documentation, that would be a nightmare,” Sittason said. “When someone comes in to the clinic and they are in bad shape, I’d have a hard time asking them those questions.”
UPDATE: As has been discussed, the Alabama law is deemed an Arizona-copycat; however, the proposed Alabama anti-immigrant bill is actually Arizona-plus. The Alabama bill adds several substantial provisions not included in the Arizona law. That being said: the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed the preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Arizona law. From the concurring opinion in United States v. Arizona:
“The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol. For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt. For those burdened by unlawful immigration, it suggests how a state could tackle that problem. It is not our function, however, to evaluate the statute as a symbol. We are asked to assess the constitutionality of five sections on their face integrated by the intent stated in Section 1. If we read Section 1 of the statute, the statute states the purpose of providing a solution to illegal immigration into the United States. So read, the statute is a singular entry into the foreign policy of the United States by a single state. The district court properly enjoined implementation of the four sections of the statute.”