Illegal alien; person who conceals or shields guilty of felony. (HB2622)

Introduced By

Del. Jack Reid (R-Richmond) with support from 10 copatrons, whose average partisan position is:

Those copatrons are Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg), Del. Anne Crockett-Stark (R-Wytheville), Del. Jeff Frederick (R-Woodbridge), Del. Tom Gear (R-Hampton), Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk), Del. Matt Lohr (R-Harrisonburg), Del. Jackson Miller (R-Manassas), Del. Beverly Sherwood (R-Winchester), Del. John Welch (R-Virginia Beach), Sen. John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Harboring illegal alien; penalty. Provides that any person who harbors, transports, or conceals an alien is guilty of a Class 6 felony if he knew or should have known that the alien was in the United States illegally. If the violation was done for the purpose of commercial or private financial gain, then the violation would be a Class 5 felony. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/10/2007Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/07 070025488
01/10/2007Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/12/2007Impact statement from VCSC (HB2622)
01/17/2007Assigned Courts sub: Criminal Law
01/22/2007Referred to Committee on Appropriations
01/23/2007Committee substitute printed 077028488-H1
01/23/2007Impact statement from VCSC (HB2622H1)
01/24/2007Assigned App. sub: Public Safety (Sherwood)
02/03/2007Read first time
02/05/2007Read second time
02/05/2007Committee substitute agreed to 077028488-H1
02/05/2007Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB2622H1
02/06/2007Read third time and passed House (89-Y 9-N)
02/06/2007Communicated to Senate
02/07/2007Constitutional reading dispensed
02/07/2007Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice


Aaron Cook writes:

So a U.S. citizen married to an undocumented immigrant commits a felony when she drives her family to church?

Rev. David Williams writes:

Better yet, a pastor who gives an injured Salvadoran day laborer a ride to the hospital is a felon. And this from the party that purports to represent Christian values?

Jeannie Fleming writes:

The Christians I know help those comply with the laws!

Gerbera writes:

The "having reason to know" part of the language is pretty troubling. I wonder how they'd define that?

Dick Bentley writes:

Yes there are Christians who don't believe we need to allow all of Mexico's poor to sneak into our country, and undo our social contract with each other in order to pay for them. Or that it's godly to live 14 toi a house in areas zoned for single families.

Go do missionary work in Mexico if your heart bleeds for these people. The U.S. is supposed to be a sovereign nation. These people were allowed in to make the rich richer, not because they can live the American dream. We need to worry about poverty among our own citizens, not among Mexico's and El Salvador's.

Because these people wear crosses and burn candles, some of you doofuses think their presence here is positive ...

Rev. David Williams writes:

And where in scripture...and in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth in such "Christians" find justification for that perspective? Obeying *zoning laws* makes you Godly? No..but showing care for the poor and the stranger does. In fact, Jesus demands it, and gives his real followers no legal status loophole.

Bless me, don't these people turn off talk radio long enough to actually read their Bibles?

Rev. David Williams writes:

In the context of existing Virginia law, this Bill would make showing Christian charity to an undocumented alien a class 6 felony...the equivalent of assaulting a police officer or engaging in a sex crime against a minor.

Perhaps it *should* pass. Then we'd get to see who's just pretending to be Christian, and who cares enough about what Jesus taught to actually take a stand.

Rev. David Williams writes:

Upon further research, I withdraw my concern. Though the Bill has passed the House, the bill that passed yesterday is a substitute that specifically deliniates that such acts need to be 1)conducted as part of commercial activity and 2) done with the specific intent of evading the law.

Dick Bentley writes:

I don't listen to talk radio, nor do I read your Bible - an absurd collection of fairy tales for emotional cripples to place their "faith" in.

You have no absolute right to "Christian Charity". Would you procure a fix for a shuddering junkie if he begged you to? Would you help a muderer fugitive hide his gun? Would you do these things if the criminal had a family to support? Would you do them if they wore crosses and believed the same religious gobbedygook that you do?

Consult your book of dreams, Reverand, and let me know if you would also help Eric Rudolph to hide in the woods if God spoke to you and told you to. Try not to sacrifice your first-born son meanwhile, that may not be God's voice talking to you.

Rev. David Williams writes:

My right to show charity is an essential part of my identity, and the identity of any Christian. It is not contingent on the legal frameworks of any particular nation-state. As such, it is, in fact, absolute as freedom itself. Inalienable rights? Sound familiar? Perhaps not.

"Shuddering junkie?" "Murderer fugitive?" What a lovely series of straw men you've presented! Do you collect them?

And I'll cling to my fairy tales, thank you very much. They're far more compelling and vital than anything you seem able to offer.

Dick Bentley writes:

Well you can cling to them, many do. Children waiting for their Santa Claus, and pretending they communicate with him. But again you write something arguable.

You cannot define the essential parts of "the identity of any Christian". The term "Christian" is used by people with vastly differing sets of beliefs and precepts, the whole spectrum from Reagan-styled social Darwanists to bleeding heart Howard Dean liberals. In point of fact there is no singular defining characteristic of self-identified "Christians". Many Americans who would self-identify as Christian don't even believe in literal devinity of Christ.

Dick Bentley writes:

I think Jesus must be rolling over in his grave at people like you who attempt to justify their own predelections and beliefs with his name.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

If y'all want to discuss the bill, I encourage you to do so. Dick, you've turned this discussion to personal attack, and that's outside the realm of what we're willing to host here. Future posts along those lines will be erased.

Dick Bentley writes:

I apologize for the word doofuses, it was unnecessary. Much of the rest I think was a fair response to the intellectual arrogance someone else displayed.

Rev. David Williams writes:

Thanks, Waldo....and my apologies if I in any way contributed to the ad hominem off-topic ranting. This site proved most useful in helping assess the progress of the bill, and surfaced the committee work that re-fashioned it into something less objectionable to Christians from across the political spectrum.

Rev. David Williams writes:

Two more cents on this particular bill: Cent 1 - A similarly worded measure was proposed two or three years ago out West, in New Mexico, I believe, although I may be mistaken. The response from the faith community was similar there, and the legislature ended up backing down.

Cent 2- Another kudo for what this site is doing--as I used it as a tool to research the history of this bill, reviewing the record of Rep. Reid helped put it into context. His record is mostly of constructive legislative proposals, which makes his mea culpa on the initial wording of this bill quite believable.