Can An Illegal Alien In Utah Get A Temple Recommend?

[karl61]

Looks like I got mixed up with the different anti-immigrant threads.

Anyways, for as much as we try to sustain the laws of the land, that is not an absolute. I'll point to the time since the Edmunds and then the Edmunds-Tucker acts (anti-polygamy laws targetting the Church). Clearly the Church had good reason to not use that as a measure to deny someone membership or a Temple reccomend, as those laws made it illegal to either enter plural marriage or even cohabitate with a plural wife married before the law was passed. Even after the second Manifesto (1904) the Church would not deny a Temple recommend to a husband who was still cohabitating with his wives. Only those entering new plural marriages were excommunicated, and that only came after the Manifesto, not the anti-polygamy laws.

I believe (and you can disagree with me all you like) that the immigration laws in place are unjust, unreasonable, and if they could be enforced, such enforcement would have catastrophic effects. Apparently the Church's view of this is more in line with my view than that of America's xenophobes.

"anti-immigrant" I love this - it says so much.

This the tip of the iceberg: people that have posted here and talk about obeying the law because if you don't you are at risk for exploitation;therefore they are anti immigrant. it's more like pro-life. how many people right now are hiding in a place like this. Too many!

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=6434477

[Ahman]

they use illegal immigrants to perform labor that otherwise wouldn't get done and that americans do not like to do.

Yeh, I remember all those unmanicured lawns and empty drive thru windows that dotted the landscape 6 years ago.

What did we do for clothing and food before then? Gosh I cant remember.

If I were a Bishop, theres no way I would give an illegal alien a recommend. The Stake President or someone higher would have to command me.

[No Touch]

Xenophobes? Don't you think that is a bit of hyperbole? I mean , just take a look at the ethnicities and national origins which are represented here in the United States currently and in on-going legal immigration populations and you will see that those opposed to illegal immigration , but in favor of legal immigration are anything but xenophobes.

"legal immigration" to the US, given the current system is a joke. Look at this VISA bulletin, specifically the first set of charts further down. If you haven't got an advanced degree you pretty well set to wait at least 7 years to get processed, and that's assuming you'll actually get a VISA.

Sorry if you feel me considering this movement to be motivated by pure xenophobia is wrong, but nothing else makes sense. If you're obsessed with law enforcement, go crack down on jay-walkers and pot-pushing "tobacco" shops of America. If you want to stop terrorism then maybe you'll at least realize that those guys are coming from European countries to which we are all too happy to give student visas. The chances/likelihood of a terrorist coming through Mexico, getting brought in by coyotes is basically non-existant. Well funded terrorists aren't going to enter willingly into a life of excessively hard menial jobs so that they can infiltrate the poorest immigrant communities in America. That's not the people they target. You want to stop drugs? Why not actually enforce drug laws here in America and actually prosecute all the celebrities and their minions who parade around how they openly use drugs?

But what purpose is served by forcing out hard working immigrants doing the lowest levels of work for less than any American will accept? Destroying businesses that depend on such labor, and damaging our economy? "Purifying" the country? Sorry, but you're not going to sell me on the idea that they are taking these jobs from unemployed Americans. Sorry, but I can't see the motivation for this as anything other than "they are different, don't speak English, lets get rid of them." You can pile up everything else you want but none of it holds water to someone who is willing to be honest about what they see and not tote a party line. (hint: just because you registered Republican doesn't mean you need to support every idea the party throws out there. Hell, it's your duty to be critical of all of them, to move your party in a meaningful direction that will actually improve America). But then that's why I stay independent.

And something to cheer you all up before further whining about "upholding the law". Just imagine what America would be if every Abolitionist and aevery Civil Rights Activist "Upheld the law" in their day.

[No Touch]

Yeh, I remember all those unmanicured lawns and empty drive thru windows that dotted the landscape 6 years ago.

What did we do for clothing and food before then? Gosh I cant remember.

If I were a Bishop, theres no way I would give an illegal alien a recommend. The Stake President or someone higher would have to command me.

Do you think there weren't illegal immigrants 6 years ago? 20 years ago?

Nevermind. Just remember that there are a multitude of reasons why you aren't a Bishop, even if this is only one.

[jadams_4242]

If we can ignore the "honest in your dealings with your fellow man" portion of the interview, why don't we just do away with the pesky word of wisdom?

Come to think of it, one of the questions is this:

Does that include the homosexual and abortion defending democrats??

Sargon

PLEASE! lets not get political hear?...........{im a democrat}......and a democrat that will not break the rules of this forum. but i would love to debate you somewhere else?

[Corky Wallace]

The words of the LDS spokesman are wise, as explicitly condemning today's illegal immigration would open the door to charges of institutional hypocrisy.

When the Saints came to Utah in 1847 it was part of Mexico.

[ed2276]

"legal immigration" to the US, given the current system is a joke. Look at this VISA bulletin, specifically the first set of charts further down. If you haven't got an advanced degree you pretty well set to wait at least 7 years to get processed, and that's assuming you'll actually get a VISA.

Sorry if you feel me considering this movement to be motivated by pure xenophobia is wrong, but nothing else makes sense. If you're obsessed with law enforcement, go crack down on jay-walkers and pot-pushing "tobacco" shops of America. If you want to stop terrorism then maybe you'll at least realize that those guys are coming from European countries to which we are all too happy to give student visas. The chances/likelihood of a terrorist coming through Mexico, getting brought in by coyotes is basically non-existant. Well funded terrorists aren't going to enter willingly into a life of excessively hard menial jobs so that they can infiltrate the poorest immigrant communities in America. That's not the people they target. You want to stop drugs? Why not actually enforce drug laws here in America and actually prosecute all the celebrities and their minions who parade around how they openly use drugs?

But what purpose is served by forcing out hard working immigrants doing the lowest levels of work for less than any American will accept? Destroying businesses that depend on such labor, and damaging our economy? "Purifying" the country? Sorry, but you're not going to sell me on the idea that they are taking these jobs from unemployed Americans. Sorry, but I can't see the motivation for this as anything other than "they are different, don't speak English, lets get rid of them." You can pile up everything else you want but none of it holds water to someone who is willing to be honest about what they see and not tote a party line. (hint: just because you registered Republican doesn't mean you need to support every idea the party throws out there. Hell, it's your duty to be critical of all of them, to move your party in a meaningful direction that will actually improve America). But then that's why I stay independent.

And something to cheer you all up before further whining about "upholding the law". Just imagine what America would be if every Abolitionist and aevery Civil Rights Activist "Upheld the law" in their day.

Just to clarify , when you say "you" and "you're" you are applying those terms in a general way , as opposed to applying them specifically to me , correct?

[karl61]

The words of the LDS spokesman are wise, as explicitly condemning today's illegal immigration would open the door to charges of institutional hypocrisy.

When the Saints came to Utah in 1847 it was part of Mexico.

Do you know what mexico's policy was? Did they have legal immigration? Did they welcome legal immigration?

[SlackTime]

"legal immigration" to the US, given the current system is a joke. Look at this VISA bulletin, specifically the first set of charts further down. If you haven't got an advanced degree you pretty well set to wait at least 7 years to get processed, and that's assuming you'll actually get a VISA.

Well I do have an experience that relates to this. My daughter in law is from Brazil, she is now a legal resident alien, here are the steps we went through. My son served in Brazil in Sao Paulo and she was a sister missionary from north Brazil also serving in Sao Paulo. Both completed their missions. After his mission he started writing to her and they decided to meet and see if there was a mutual interest. On the legal/immigration front, here are the steps they took.

1. A tourist Visa from Brazil for a 3-month stay.

2. When they decided that marriage was what they both wanted... Marriage

3. Applied for permission for her to become a resident alien (Cost $1500 plus various doctor fees)

4. Applied for Social Security Card (more fees, I don't remember the amount but I think around $500)

She does not have an advanced degree, though she does have some college coursework which we are arranging for transfer to a US university.

So the main are where we cut corners was getting them married while she was here on a tourist Visa, which ended up costing us in some fines but saved us some long paperwork waits. On the other hand I wasn't sure they were certain about their future together before she came to the states and if they were they weren't telling me.

-SlackTime

[Confidential Informant]

I hope taxes are also on the cutting block where the Church says it does not get involved ...it's a government issue - the church would likely say a u.s citizen take services and is protected by military and such so you need to pay taxes. ( I know your response lol)

Except that tax evasion is an actual crime whereas illegal entry is a civil matter.

Let me repeat that: Entry without inspection is NOT a crime. It is a civil matter that is dealt with in a Civil court with civil authorites.

C.I. (Member American Immigration Lawyer's Association).

[Corky Wallace]

[Karl61] Do you know what mexico's policy was? Did they have legal immigration? Did they welcome legal immigration?

Actually, I don't know what Mexico's immigration policy was, but I would suspect after what happened in Texas Mexico was probably not enamored with Anglos settling Mexican territory.

As a part of the broader context that culminated in the US war against Mexico in 1848, I would think the Saints' immigration to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847 would not be viewed as a particularly welcome event.

Do you? Or was Mexico considered to be exercising unrighteous dominion over land God set aside for his chosen people?

[karl61]

Except that tax evasion is an actual crime whereas illegal entry is a civil matter.

Let me repeat that: Entry without inspection is NOT a crime. It is a civil matter that is dealt with in a Civil court with civil authorites.

C.I. (Member American Immigration Lawyer's Association).

go to this link: http://app4.lasd.org/iic/ajis_search.cfm

write in the word juan garcia and hit serch. you will see over a hundred matches and most are on INS holds. If they already did their time why are they being held in a criminal facillity.

[Earl]

Would someone please provide the rationale as to why the status of knowingly and intentionally being an illegal alien is not contrary to being honest in your dealings with your fellow man?

Is it not contrary because of a technicality of "crime" vs a "civil" matter?

Is it not contrary because "fellow man" really means a "person" and not a "state" or "governmental entity"?

Or why...?

Earl

[Machtyn]

Being republican, I can believe they may disqualify someone for being a Democrat, but I've never heard of such a case...

My Democrat Stake President and wife might take an exception to that.

/though, I don't see how she could have thought inviting Al Gore or Kofi Anan were good things for a local community gathering of many faiths. More corrupt people, I know of few other. I had to bite my tongue on those comments.

OH! to be more on topic... (a little) illegal immigrants CAN have their income taxes paid. There is a form. My wife asked her HR manager about that one time, as she works with and fluently speaks with many hispanics.

[Confidential Informant]

If they already did their time why are they being held in a criminal facillity.

I didn't say that the immigration system doesn't have some elements of the criminal system, but the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that immigration is a civil, not a criminal matter.

Now, if immigrant comes over, legally or illegally, commits a serious crime, is deported and then re-enters, he enters the realm of the criminal courts, but merely entering illegal is not, I repeat, is NOT a crime.

BTW, I don't need lectures about immigration law. It's what I do every day.

C.I.

P.S. The vast majority of immigrants (illegal) come here because they are fleeing poverty and looking for a way to provide for, and protect, their wives and children.

If a man breaks into your home and threatens your family and you shoot him dead, you are not lauded as a criminal.

If someone you love is being threatened and you step in and assault the person doing the threatening, you are not deemed to have broken the law.

Why, then, are some folks so quick to condemn a Mexican or Guatemalan (or any other country) immigrant who takes his family, crosses hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles at great expense, for the sole purpose of doing the exact same thing as the people in my above two examples?

The spirit of Javert lives on, I suppose.

ci

[ed2276]

I didn't say that the immigration system doesn't have some elements of the criminal system, but the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that immigration is a civil, not a criminal matter.

Now, if immigrant comes over, legally or illegally, commits a serious crime, is deported and then re-enters, he enters the realm of the criminal courts, but merely entering illegal is not, I repeat, is NOT a crime.

BTW, I don't need lectures about immigration law. It's what I do every day.

C.I.

P.S. The vast majority of immigrants (illegal) come here because they are fleeing poverty and looking for a way to provide for, and protect, their wives and children.

If a man breaks into your home and threatens your family and you shoot him dead, you are not lauded as a criminal.

If someone you love is being threatened and you step in and assault the person doing the threatening, you are not deemed to have broken the law.

Why, then, are some folks so quick to condemn a Mexican or Guatemalan (or any other country) immigrant who takes his family, crosses hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles at great expense, for the sole purpose of doing the exact same thing as the people in my above two examples?

The spirit of Javert lives on, I suppose.

ci

Come on Counselor , immigrants crossing the border illegally to better their economic circumstances is not the same as a person acting legally to defend himself or another against an illegal act of violence on his/the other's person.

If person A is attacking me I don't have the right to go and use violence against innocent person B , who is doing nothing against me. If Mexican citizens are experiencing economic violence from the Mexican government they don't have the right to seek redress from the United States. They ought to demand reform from the one doing them the injury...Mexico. As it stands , the Mexican government , rather than reform to address the economic injustice it does to its own citizens encourages the malcontents to cross the border , thus palming their problem children off onto the United States. In so doing , the government of Mexico not only avoids having to change its economic corrupt practices it also is rewarded for them with the dollars the exiles send back across the border into Mexico.

[mbh26]

Apparently the Church's view of this is more in line with my view than that of America's xenophobes.

Look I just don't want my countrys living conditions turn into the conditions that exist in Latin America. If every Latino comes here, that is what is going to happen. If that makes me a xenophobe, so be it.

[koakaipo]

Would someone please provide the rationale as to why the status of knowingly and intentionally being an illegal alien is not contrary to being honest in your dealings with your fellow man?

Is it not contrary because of a technicality of "crime" vs a "civil" matter?

Is it not contrary because "fellow man" really means a "person" and not a "state" or "governmental entity"?

Or why...?

Earl

Here's what the logic seems to be from that newspaper article I offered. The rationale is that while the church doesn't want to encourage illegal immigration, the deed is done once they are here in this country and making a life for themselves. The church is thus worrying about administering to them religiously, and they are saying they do not feel that their status here is reason enough to not be able to partake of the gospel.

There is not a line drawn as a result as to whether one's status matters in terms of both baptismal and temple recommend worthiness. Another thing to consider is the notion that many mormons do read certain biblical passages as a foretelling of America being a sort of religious and democratic ensign to the world, and it's light will attract people. This religious take puts the whole situation at a different angle.

Now the honest dealings factor of illegal immigrants is not done in a vacuum either. They tend to come here because there's a demand for cheap labor. We Americans like a deal. It's a dance in many ways between illegals and American citizens.

I do think it's a grey area issue, and I understand people's points on the other side of the argument. I do think though the leadership is trying to keep the eye on the prize here though in the bigger picture though.

[ed2276]

Here's what the logic seems to be from that newspaper article I offered. The rationale is that while the church doesn't want to encourage illegal immigration, the deed is done once they are here in this country and making a life for themselves. The church is thus worrying about administering to them religiously, and they are saying they do not feel that their status here is reason enough to not be able to partake of the gospel.

There is not a line drawn as a result as to whether one's status matters in terms of both baptismal and temple recommend worthiness. Another thing to consider is the notion that many mormons do read certain biblical passages as a foretelling of America being a sort of religious and democratic ensign to the world, and it's light will attract people. This religious take puts the whole situation at a different angle.

Now the honest dealings factor of illegal immigrants is not done in a vacuum either. They tend to come here because there's a demand for cheap labor. We Americans like a deal. It's a dance in many ways between illegals and American citizens.

I do think it's a grey area issue, and I understand people's points on the other side of the argument. I do think though the leadership is trying to keep the eye on the prize here though in the bigger picture though.

Well , I think that is the point then. It isn't an issue of whether Mexican citizens are morally or legally right or wrong in crossing the border to better themselves economically. That isn't an issue the church concerns itself with in regard to temple access. The church is concerned with the spiritual welfare of its members , no matter their national origin or legal citizenship , and would not forbid worthy members from attending the temple wherever they may be.

[Earl]

Well , I think that is the point then. It isn't an issue of whether Mexican citizens are morally or legally right or wrong in crossing the border to better themselves economically. That isn't an issue the church concerns itself with in regard to temple access. The church is concerned with the spiritual welfare of its members , no matter their national origin or legal citizenship , and would not forbid worthy members from attending the temple wherever they may be.

I guess we are back to circular logic... how then is a member worthy, if the member knowingly and intentionally, is in any country illegally? It is hard for me to justify the mantle of "worthiness" upon illegal aliens, when we deem a member "unworthy" if he or she has a cup of coffee every once in a while.

I hear what you are saying and I am not trying to be difficult, but I would be able to more easily accept the church's position if it would provide a frame work for members to understand these differences. For the church to say it is not in the enforcement business when it bi-annually makes inquiries into dietary practices and contributions of its members ....seems like a stretch.

Earl

[Oracle]

There is no framework, Earl. There is no direct temple recommend question about your immigrant status. As such, if a person does not feel they are doing anything wrong, they can genuinely answer in a way that would reflect temple worthiness.

[ed2276]

I guess we are back to circular logic... how then is a member worthy, if the member knowingly and intentionally, is in any country illegally? It is hard for me to justify the mantle of "worthiness" upon illegal aliens, when we deem a member "unworthy" if he or she has a cup of coffee every once in a while.

I think the difference is that living the revelation on the word of wisdom is a standard of worthiness which the church has set , while one's citizenship status isn't.

I hear what you are saying and I am not trying to be difficult, but I would be able to more easily accept the church's position if it would provide a frame work for members to understand these differences. For the church to say it is not in the enforcement business when it bi-annually makes inquiries into dietary practices and contributions of its members ....seems like a stretch.

Earl

I think that the church only is concerned with enforcement/regulation within the spiritual/revelatory boundaries it concerns itself with as a standard for assessing worthiness and not with regard to secular standards of citizenship. There are other areas of worthiness which also cross into secular areas where inquiry is made , such as spousal abuse and members can be tried for their membership when found to have committed certain felonies , but legal citizenship status apparently isn't one of the concerns when assessing worthiness.

[koakaipo]

Just thought I'd add that the appearance of this topic alot on this board sorta gets to the fact this is not a slam dunk subject--regardless of what side you are on here, it's not a black and white issue with a clean and tidy solution.

If you agree with the church's current policy, you still can see the slippery slope it introduces on some levels. I don't think there's a completely pat and tidy reasoning here that will satisfy everyone.

If you disagree with the church's current policy, you still can see the fact that social and economic circumstances on OUR side of the fence contribute to the situation as well. We vote with our money which side we are on, from the .99 burger to the head of lettuce to the strawberries we get for a steal. In that sense, there is responsibility to go around in regards to honest dealings.

I think the leadership is cautious on how to proceed cause this is a very complex issue.

[No Touch]

Look I just don't want my countrys living conditions turn into the conditions that exist in Latin America. If every Latino comes here, that is what is going to happen. If that makes me a xenophobe, so be it.

That's a very simplistic view, that denies a lot of the underlying causes of poverty in Latin America. Just look at Mexico and you see the roots reaching into America. Just imagine for a second, had the US not launched an unprovoked war of conquest against Mexico (not to mention the illegal annexation of Texas before that), all that Gold people were rushing for in California would've been funding decades of industrialization in Mexico, not the US. History would be a lot different.

But my point isn't to blame everything on the USA. The point is that the fact that you think that us Hispanics coming to America bring poverty and nothing else, basically equating us to a plague that will destroy the country is rather offensive. Did the Puritans, Irish, Italians, who populated the North East, all coming here impovershed, doom this country to perpetual poverty? Did it happen with the Chinese immigrants who built railroads out West? Why do you think so bad of us then?

Beyond that, they don't all actually want to live here. Many people come here to work hard and support families in their countries and after a good number of years go back, not stay and depend on social security or any other government programs. Let this go on for a little while and the situation will improve enough over there that very few will have the motivation to come work in the US.

[No Touch]

If you agree with the church's current policy, you still can see the slippery slope it introduces on some levels. I don't think there's a completely pat and tidy reasoning here that will satisfy everyone.

I don't see a slippery slope because I believe the Church is led by inspired men. The Church could stand on a wet wall perpendicular to the ground and not slip. And I can't understand why someone wouldn't share that view.