Lds Church Issues New Statement Re: Immigration

[smac97]

Here:

Immigration: Church Issues New Statement

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today issued the following official statement on immigration:

Around the world, debate on the immigration question has become intense. That is especially so in the United States. Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.

What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

Interesting, eh?

[Duncan]

A few years back in my folk's ward they had a member of the Bishopric that was illegal and it seemed every month for testimony mtg. he would get up and share his appeal to be legal but they did get the boot and now I think they are back but now it is more legal then before but he isn't in the bishopric...

[frankenstein]

it seems more clear than previous statements.

[DH]

That is interesting, indeed. Thanks for sharing that with us.

[BCSpace]

Interesting, eh?

No change really. They are wrong about the likelyhood of falling short though. Enforcement legislation can never fall short now because everything else needed is in place. The Constitution already provides a pathway to citizenship. There is already legal means whereby someone can enter the US to live and work, and mass expulsion has not been a part of legislation. Those interested in stemming the tide of illegal immigration in Utah or elsewhere can go ahead with their plans without being in opposition to the Church.

Where enforcement will have the best effect is to secure the borders (with a comprehensive and manned fence), heavily penalize individuals, companies, and local and state governments who hire, school, give licenses, or otherwise benefit illegal immigrants. Also, ensure that the only way to become legal is to go back across the border and enter in by the front door. And prohibit those born to an illegal immigrant (father and/or mother) from obtaining automatic citizenship. That is the only valid and workable solution to the overall problem.

[Jeff K.]

Responsibility of Church Members: Avoiding Being Judgmental

The First Presidency has for many years taught that undocumented status should not by itself prevent an otherwise worthy Church member from entering the temple or being ordained to the priesthood.

Bishops are in the best position to make appropriate judgments as to Church privileges. Meanwhile, Church members should avoid making judgments about fellow members in their congregations

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Where in the US Constitution is a pathway way to citizenship?

That wall(fence) didn't work out all that well for the Great Wall of China or the Berlin Wall.

The schools are mandated by law to provide an education to all children in residence of the state regardless of the legal status of their parents.

There is no citizenship requirements to obtain any license that I am aware of. IE. If you are in California for 10 days or longer it is state law that you obtain a drivers license in order to legally drive on the public highways.

Glad to see you disagree with the US Constitution. Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Edited June 11, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[BCSpace]

Where in the US Constitution is a pathway way to citizenship?

Are you not familiar with the Constitution and the naturalization process?

That wall(fence) didn't work out all that well for the Great Wall of China or the Berlin Wall.

For the purposes of the current problem, they would work more than is necessary. In combination with local the local enforcement on those who hire and benefit, a much lesser barrier will work just fine.

There is no citizenship requirements to obtain any license that I am aware of. IE. If you are in California for 10 days or longer it is state law that you obtain a drivers license in order to legally drive on the public highways.

They have been proposed. But that was just one small example of an inappropriate benefit.

Glad to see you disagree with the US Constitution. Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

In no way have I proposed anything that would go against it.

[Bob Crockett]

Where enforcement will have the best effect is to secure the borders (with a comprehensive and manned fence), heavily penalize individuals, companies, and local and state governments who hire, school, give licenses, or otherwise benefit illegal immigrants. Also, ensure that the only way to become legal is to go back across the border and enter in by the front door. And prohibit those born to an illegal immigrant (father and/or mother) from obtaining automatic citizenship. That is the only valid and workable solution to the overall problem.

So much could be said about the fallacy of all of this, but I am often beating my head against the bricks against what I call the central Utah faction.

Those kind of restrictions -- a fence, penalties -- never applied to a single one of my ancestors. (Well, I didn't have Irish and Chinese in my heritage, I will admit.) What you've written reads so much like the efforts of both the Republicans and the Democrats pre-Civil war to deny citizenship to free blacks and to legislate compulsory colonization in central America or Africa.

Libertarian principles would teach that immigration restrictions, fences and penalties impede economic growth and the general welfare. They are no different than protective tariffs; immigration restrictions seek to protect the supposed rights of current occupants of the land as opposed to future occupants. No -- I'm a Reaganite here; amnesty and recognition of the rights of immigrants. Reagan is the only President in recent history who had it remotely right with respect to immigration.

Restrictive immigration policies are antithetical to true competitive capitalism; by shooting yourself in the foot with respect to cheap labor you lose in the world markets. And, guess what; we are.

I was there in the mission field when the Church reversed its documented status for priesthood leaders and members around 1975. No longer were Church leaders to consider documented status a part of any requirement to uphold and sustain an evil and unfair law.

And, contrary to your post, nowhere does the Constitution dictate the kind of pathway to citizenship you describe. Nowhere does the constitution pull up the ladder.

Edited June 11, 2011 by rcrocket

[BCSpace]

The First Presidency has for many years taught that undocumented status should not by itself prevent an otherwise worthy Church member from entering the temple or being ordained to the priesthood.

Bishops are in the best position to make appropriate judgments as to Church privileges. Meanwhile, Church members should avoid making judgments about fellow members in their congregations

While the decision is ultimately his (or possibly the Stake President), he does also have counselors and a Ward council to consult with. My own experience has been (three or four cases) only when a known illegal has made himself legal then blessings of baptism or a TR have been made available.

[BCSpace]

Those kind of restrictions -- a fence, penalties -- never applied to a single one of my ancestors. (Well, I didn't have Irish and Chinese in my heritage, I will admit.)

The only penalties I applied were against citizens. A fence merely encourages one to enter by the front door. Plus you are forgetting Ellis Island where enforcement against illegals was much more severe than I propose.

Libertarian principles would teach that immigration restrictions, fences and penalties impede economic growth and the general welfare.

In no way have I propose restricting legal immigration. All we aks is that people come in through the front door.

I was there in the mission field when the Church reversed its documented status for priesthood leaders and members around 1975. No longer were Church leaders to consider documented status a part of any requirement to uphold and sustain an evil and unfair law.

The Church still requires obedience to the law and the Bishop will be the ultimate judge of that.

And, contrary to your post, nowhere does the Constitution dictate the kind of pathway to citizenship you describe.

I didn't dictate or describe any pathway to citizenship other than what the constitution requires.

[Jeff K.]

That wall(fence) didn't work out all that well for the Great Wall of China or the Berlin Wall.

The Wall of China is distinct. It was meant as protection from the military, not civilian groups. And yes, walls are static defensive lines that cannot stop a maneuvering enemy. However, if you want to see the effectiveness of a wall against a civilian population, then you might want to look at the Iron Curtain of Europe, or the Berlin Wall for that matter (with which I have had personal experience). It was quite effective in keeping people from crossing over. The "China Wall" comparison is ineffective and misleading.

The Berlin Wall did not collapse until the government did.

The schools are mandated by law to provide an education to all children in residents of the state regardless of the legal status of their parents.

This however is not a constitutional requirement given that education remains within the purview of the states.

There is no citizenship requirements to obtain any license that I am aware of. IE. If you are in California for 10 days or longer it is state law that you obtain a drivers license in order to legally drive on the public highways.

That is misleading. For a Drivers license you must be a resident, a legal resident. You must have a social security number (which is verified with the Social security office), and a number of other requirements whose base is legal residency. So while it doesn't "say" you have to be a legal citizen. What is required in effect means you must be a legal citizen.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That doesn't speak to the parents legal status. Consider how, in San Diego, you can see hundreds of kids get off the bus at the border and walk into Mexico. Their parents live in Mexico, pay Mexico's taxes but get their education here. Which is not suprising given Mexico's poor education system. However those families are not paying into the system. I think it dishonest, but I also think it is di minimus.

While I disagree with BCS on the issue, I also believe, as the church has indicated, the rhetoric and hyperbole must be kept to a minimum or stopped.

Stronger borders are feasible and better, helping our brothers and sisters already here to somehow come to an accomodation is also feasible and better.

[BCSpace]

While I disagree with BCS on the issue......Stronger borders are feasible and better, helping our brothers and sisters already here to somehow come to an accomodation is also feasible and better.

You don't sem to disagree with me at all, at least on what needs to be done. You might perhaps disagree with me on ensuring illegals go back across the border (perhaps only a few hundred feet) and come back in, but I think it's an important statement to make about coming in through the front door.

I also believe, as the church has indicated, the rhetoric and hyperbole must be kept to a minimum or stopped.

Sure. But it's not wrong to propose solutions.

[Jeff K.]

Well I am very clear that I think we could afford to accomodate the illegal aliens and give them a path to citizenship. So in that you and I are in disagreement.

[BCSpace]

Well I am very clear that I think we could afford to accomodate the illegal aliens and give them a path to citizenship. So in that you and I are in disagreement.

I don't see how unless you believe we should encourage or close our eyes to illegal immigration. I have proposed nothing but accomdation and citizenship. The 14th Amendment refers to a naturalization process. Which means laws are already on the books as to how one can become a citizen. Therefore, a pathway to citizenship already exists for illegals as it does for anyone else.

Edited June 11, 2011 by BCSpace

[Jeff K.]

A fine would be ok with me, and then a period of time when they can legally work here, but allow those already in the system to be legalized first. The fine revenue would go towards border maintenance. Personally I would also like a clause accelerating citizenship for the individuals if their children finish high school with a B grade or better. There is no surer way to improve student quality than having the parent buy into it. I could see many immigrant parents suddenly taking an active part in their childs education, and how that positive impact would raise the long term standard of living for our nation.

So strengthen the borders first.

Provide a path for citizenship for those here illegally while first accomodating those who have taken the right path.

And a fine in order to help mitigate costs and also to reflect or acknowledge some of the cost.

A side note of course being my own idea on education.

So while you and I agree on strong borders, I think you and I disagree on the road we need to take for those already here illegally.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

"The Wall of China is distinct. It was meant as protection from the military, not civilian groups."

Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China

The Great Wall of China was actually several walls dividing the lesser kingdoms in ancient China later modified to keep out the Mongol clan tribes.

"It was quite effective in keeping people from crossing over".

Not true. West Germans could travel to East Germany for visits, but East Germans were not afforded the same privileges. Further the Wall was ineffective against tunnelers, and before the walls completion people just ran over the border. I watched the Berlin Wall go up, and watched it come down. All in the period of one lifetime. I'm not THAT old.

The Great Wall of China still stands, in places, though constant maintenance. The western end is gone.

"The Berlin Wall did not collapse until the government did".

True but immaterial.

"This however is not a constitutional requirement given that education remains within the purview of the states".

The 14th Amendment would appear to disagree with your interpretation.

"That doesn't speak to the parents legal status".

Yes it does. Regardless of the legal status of the parents. If you are born here, you are automatically a citizen. As originally conceived the 14th Amendment was designed to prelude the South from denying voting rights to Blacks because their parents were not considered citizen but slaves. It has been further codified to mean that ALL that were/are born here are US Citizen and entitled to the full protects of the law.

[etana]

No change really. They are wrong about the likelyhood of falling short though. Enforcement legislation can never fall short now because everything else needed is in place.

I think you may have missed some of the Church's statement.

They actually said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God."

Which is a pretty important qualifier you seem to have some difficulty acknowledging.

...Also, ensure that the only way to become legal is to go back across the border and enter in by the front door. And prohibit those born to an illegal immigrant (father and/or mother) from obtaining automatic citizenship. That is the only valid and workable solution to the overall problem.

Wow. It is clearly inhumane and I would say, unchristian in the first part to uproot a whole (or worse, part) of a family this way. The second is also unconstitutional.

You might have missed this too:

"The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."

[BCSpace]

A fine would be ok with me, and then a period of time when they can legally work here, but allow those already in the system to be legalized first. The fine revenue would go towards border maintenance. Personally I would also like a clause accelerating citizenship for the individuals if their children finish high school with a B grade or better. There is no surer way to improve student quality than having the parent buy into it. I could see many immigrant parents suddenly taking an active part in their childs education, and how that positive impact would raise the long term standard of living for our nation.

So strengthen the borders first.

Provide a path for citizenship for those here illegally while first accomodating those who have taken the right path.

You've already implied that a pathway already exists which I highlighted.

And a fine in order to help mitigate costs and also to reflect or acknowledge some of the cost.

Amnesty. If someone enters my house through the window of or the back door, should I just accept a small (relatively) amount money and he can now stay? Of course not.

I could kill him or show him the door and boot him out it. Or I could make him go back out the way he came and knock on the door where the host will approve or disapprove entry which is the way it needs to be done. We can quibble all we want about what happens at the door, but the bottom line is that a pathway to work and citizenship already exists.

So while you and I agree on strong borders, I think you and I disagree on the road we need to take for those already here illegally.

Our only disagreement still seems to be where to get on the already existing pathway.

I think you may have missed some of the Church's statement.

They actually said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God."

I don't seem to have missed it. Instead of throwing them out, I am making them come in through the front door which is even analogous to the Gospel (John 10:1).

...Also, ensure that the only way to become legal is to go back across the border and enter in by the front door. And prohibit those born to an illegal immigrant (father and/or mother) from obtaining automatic citizenship. That is the only valid and workable solution to the overall problem.

Wow. It is clearly inhumane and I would say, unchristian in the first part to uproot a whole (or worse, part) of a family this way.

How so? They came here by the same path didn't they? I'm sure they could find people willing to drive them to the border and take them back once processed. Now with the appropriate documentation and screening (that already exists), they can go to school, work, get a license, etc.

The second is also unconstitutional.

How so?

You might have missed this too:

"The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."

This is exactly my approach. One squares oneself by coming in legally. This is also analogous to LDS doctrine on repentence.

Edited June 11, 2011 by BCSpace

[Biz]

I would like to know if the Church is still counseling members of the Church to stay home in their "Native Countries" and "Build Zion" at home? Seems like if the Church did not have a vast portion of members from South America immigrating to the USA they would stay out of immigration politics. But really, I would like to know if LDS members all around the world and specifically Central and South America are still counseled by LDS Church leaders to Build Zion at home and not to migrate to Utah. Quite frankly, I feel the Church should stay out of politics period.

Biz

[Bob Crockett]

I would like to know if the Church is still counseling members of the Church to stay home in their "Native Countries" and "Build Zion" at home? Seems like if the Church did not have a vast portion of members from South America immigrating to the USA they would stay out of immigration politics. But really, I would like to know if LDS members all around the world and specifically Central and South America are still counseled by LDS Church leaders to Build Zion at home and not to migrate to Utah. Quite frankly, I feel the Church should stay out of politics period.

Biz

It isn't quite like that. It is a very rare thing that a Mexican member of the Church will emigrate to Utah to be with the Saints. Instead, they are already in the state (or in my state, California) where they encounter the missionaries. When I spent some time among somewhat middle class wards in central Mexico, I can't recall a single member who left for Utah except maybe to go to BYU.

The Church does stay out of politics. When they call a branch president in California, they don't ask him if he's legal. Or they might but it won't have any impact upon the calling unless there is a real prospect that he might be caught and deported. But with millions of illegals here in California, the risk of deportation is rather rare. I have the same friends I see at church week after week, year after year, decade after decade, who I know are illegal. They've been bishops, branch presidents, counselors, Relief Society Presidents, seminary teachers; you name it.

[BCSpace]

Or they might but it won't have any impact upon the calling unless there is a real prospect that he might be caught and deported.

If they know he's illegal, they'll ask him to square it before he's called; even in California. Been there (even California), done that. It still really is a don't ask don't tell sort of thing.

[rodheadlee]

How so? They came here by the same path didn't they? I'm sure they could find people willing to drive them to the border and take them back once processed. Now with the appropriate documentation and screening (that already exists), they can go to school, work, get a license, etc.

How so?

This is exactly my approach. One squares oneself by coming in legally. This is also analogous to LDS doctrine on repentence.

How long would this process take for a family of 4? A few days? A few weeks, months or years?

Edited June 11, 2011 by rodheadlee

[BCSpace]

I would like to know if LDS members all around the world and specifically Central and South America are still counseled by LDS Church leaders to Build Zion at home and not to migrate to Utah.

On the current website, one can look up "Zion" under Study By Topic. One of those things referenced in the topic of Zion is something written in 1977. The date doesn't matter. What matters is that it is prominently displayed on the Topic now:

In view of these principles, and so that members of the Church who live outside the United States and Canada would know why they are now counseled to remain in their own nations and not gather to an American Zion, I gave the following talk in the Lima Peru Area Conference:

................

However, in the providences of Him who knoweth all things, in the providences of Him who scattered Israel and who is now gathering that favored people again, the day has now come when the fold of Christ is reaching out to the ends of the earth. We are not established in all nations, but we surely shall be before the second coming of the Son of Man.

As the Book of Mormon says, in the last days, “the saints of God” shall be found “upon all the face of the earth.” Also: “The saints of the church of the Lamb and … the covenant people of the Lord”—scattered as they are “upon all the face of the earth”—shall be “armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.” (1 Ne. 14:12, 14.)

We are living in a new day. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is fast becoming a worldwide church. Congregations of Saints are now, or soon will be, strong enough to support and sustain their members no matter where they reside. Temples are being built wherever the need justifies. We can foresee many temples in South America in process of time.

Come: Let Israel Build Zion Elder Bruce R. McConkie Of the Council of the Twelve, Ensign, May 1977.

Come: Let Israel Build Zion

Topic: Zion

Doesn't speak to anything in the immigration debate though. But one can clearly see that the teaching is not racist or anticultural etc.

Quite frankly, I feel the Church should stay out of politics period.

Impossible. They are inseparably connected. However, they can establish an aura of neutrality as far as they are able. The guiding principle today is the parable of the wheat and the tares.

[BCSpace]

How long would this process take for a family of 4? A few days? A few weeks, months or years?

I predict no longer than it took them in the Reagan era (1987 iirc) amnesty program. But yes, there will be lines if we have good enforcement against citizens who hire illegals etc. One could give warning that in one year's time, strict enforcement will occur and the fence is going up fast. Get it done now. If it causes severe inconvenience, well, you had a year and that's the price and example one must accept for breaking and entering. But it is also a great reward to be here legally and enjoy the opportunity.

Mexican-side border towns will certainly profit by putting people up.

Edited June 11, 2011 by BCSpace