The Church and members who aren't documented

[ERayR]

CFR. I would really like to read reliable evidence or proof that they will starve if they don't enter the USA illegally. Let me know what you find. I am not trying to argue or even disagree. I just want to know if this really is the case for most families that cross the border illegally.

All I have is antedotal evidence but living in an area where there is a considerable population of Mexican workers and being aquainted with several I find that this is exactly the case. If their families did not need the money to survive and if there were jobs available in Mexico almost every one I am aquainted with would be back home with their families. I only know a couple of families and they were young men who are/were supporting their parents and siblings in Mexico and have married after coming here.

If first hand antedotal evidence is insufficient then I am sorry.

[ERayR]

it is also not the Churches place to enforce child support payments, yet Child support is part of the interview.

It is the churches (Bishop of the ward)place to see to it the children are cared for. I think that extends to all children.

[thesometimesaint]

To bad the Wampanoag's did not ask for papers.

[toon]

CFR. I would really like to read reliable evidence or proof that they will starve if they don't enter the USA illegally. Let me know what you find. I am not trying to argue or even disagree. I just want to know if this really is the case for most families that cross the border illegally.

In law school, I clerked at the Immigration Rights Office of Legal Aid. The office exclusively dealt with people that were under immediate threat of deportation. Working there, I met quite a few people who came here illegally because they or their families were under immediate threat of death. Yet they didn't quality for asylum under the definition that the US had been using or interpreting at the time.

I have two missionary companions who are currently living in Canada. They had family members murdered/assassinated shortly prior to leaving on their missions, and they feared for their lives once they finished their missions. They are living in Canada because, at the time, the United States would not grant asylum to people that claimed to be victims of militaries that were receiving US aid. So Canada took them in. You can say they followed the law and chose a place where they could immigrate legally. But the reality was that they had resources to get them to Canada. Many Central Americans fleeing at the time only had resources to get to the United States. In other words, it was their only realisitic option.

[O-Brother]

@ frankenstein

The word "illegal" and the word LDS should not be mixed together. The Priesthood should never be associated with any illegal activity regardless of citizenship status. A law-breaking Saint is not a true saint and that applies to all. Crossing the border or overstaying a visa does not automatically grant anyone the status of "immigrant." That's a falsehood. If you are U.S. citizen and you misappropriate and use someone else's social security number for any purpose, whether it is to feed your family - we all have to feed our families by the way - you can't shouldn't honestly pass a temple interview or advance in the offices of the Priesthood.

There should be no exception or double-standards. God has already set the standards through Joseph's 13 Articles of faith and through the 10 commandments. Thou shall not steal. That applies to all of us.

If you can't make things right, you wait until you can. You don't force your way in. You don't bypass others who are doing the right things and you don't use "feed families" as a method to draw tolerance and compassion because there are millions of people in the world who are truly starving and we're not granting them the same "en mass" entry privileges. If it is impermissible to come to the U.S., try Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil, Chile or many other possibilities. Entry is not automatic. It's based on quotas and qualifications in order to maintain balance. We're out of balance in part because of violations of the law and non-patrolled border entry points and overstayed visas.

The worse thing I've ever heard when asked whether we should baptize persons who are breaking the law - whether it is U.S. citizens or illegal aliens - was "baptize them anyway..." Consider how absurd that statement is. It totally bypasses the process of repentance and restitution for the sake of numbers/conversions. Absurd indeed. There are other issues to consider which explain the tolerance and lack of objectivity towards illegal immigration. Many of these issues have to do with conversion numbers and relationships, missionary work and service among illegals in this country and in their home countries We should never condone illegal activity just because the government fails to act or doesn't care. Compassion means "go and sin no more." The same standards that are used toward U.S. citizens should also be used toward illegal aliens.

The implications of Priesthood ordinances performed by those in violation of the laws of the land are worthy of consideration. Again, regardless of legal status. We're either law-abiding people or we're not. Temple recommends, Priesthood advances are either given to law-abiding, worthy members or they're not. All tithes should come from honest, legal and authorized work and earnings. Biases based on emotion, friendships and service do not justify the condoning of illegal activity. Child support questions should be eliminated if legal status is not questioned as well. One of the TR questions asks if there are any unresolved issues. Answering "no" to that, constitutes a lie to a Priesthood authority. As the Lord puts it: http://scriptures.lds.org/gs/l/46

So how should things be? In a perfect world where common sense ruled, saints would abide by the laws of the land, immigrate through the proper channels like everyone else, pay the fees, get screened, interviewed and qualify for visas or wait in line, even if it's 10-15 years, until the immigration process is completed. No fraud would be used to gain U.S. citizenship by illicit means or the use of false instruments. Saints would then apply for citizenship if desired and do things the right way instead of rationalizing law-breaking and wrong-doing for whatever reasons. All of us can come up with rationalizations for sin and for breaking laws but that doesn't mean it's right or something that should be common practice among LDS people.Sometimes the answer is simply: "No you don't qualify. Sorry." How many of us have head to deal with no being able to get something just because we wanted it? That's life. The U.S. cannot please everyone at any cost. There is always a cost.

[Nofear]

A couple of interesting blog posts:

Revisiting the Church's stance on Immigration

Another Reason Why Church Members Should Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform

It seems that the Church has actively lobbied for legislation (which passed) which would seem to belie much of O-Brother's comment.

[BCSpace]

The word "illegal" and the word LDS should not be mixed together. The Priesthood should never be associated with any illegal activity regardless of citizenship status. A law-breaking Saint is not a true saint and that applies to all. Crossing the border or overstaying a visa does not automatically grant anyone the status of "immigrant." That's a falsehood. If you are U.S. citizen and you misappropriate and use someone else's social security number for any purpose, whether it is to feed your family - we all have to feed our families by the way - you can't shouldn't honestly pass a temple interview or advance in the offices of the Priesthood.

Amen to your entire post O-Brother. Of course this is why the term "undocumented" is used in certain circles instead of "illegal". It is to assuage guilt and to mask wrong and sinful behavior and the support of it.

[O-Brother]

A couple of interesting blog posts:

Revisiting the Church's stance on Immigration

Another Reason Why Church Members Should Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform

It seems that the Church has actively lobbied for legislation (which passed) which would seem to belie much of O-Brother's comment.

I'm already familiar with what the Church is doing in regards to "illegal" immigration. That's nothing new. The Church's position on illegal immigration was made clear 2-3 years ago. That's when I began to study the issue to understand it. I understand it now. Mexico has the largest membership body and Church growth in the U.S. is high among both legal and illegal Latino communities. This poses many implications. We will just have to see how it all turns out and at what cost. I believe this issue will be revealing, representative, consequential and catalytic in many ways.

[O-Brother]

Amen to your entire post O-Brother. Of course this is why the term "undocumented" is used in certain circles instead of "illegal". It is to assuage guilt and to mask wrong and sinful behavior and the support of it.

Amen to what you said above as well. Yes, the issue is full of rationalizations that range from words to deeds. It is also highly preferential and monopolized. Those who derive a direct or indirect benefit from illegal immigration, either by association or involvement, are never going to be against it or pay attention to its consequences. But this issue is not only about laws. It's about core beliefs. It's about ethics. It's about the Ten Commandments, the Priesthood, honesty, tithing, right and wrong and the definition of compassion. There are also issues involving statistics, money and the consequences of standing by what's right instead of attempting to turn something that begins with violation of law into something that ignores such violation. It's about the assumption that violation of law is inconsequential or akin to no big deal.

[alter idem]

it is also not the Churches place to enforce child support payments, yet Child support is part of the interview.

The church is not doing it to 'enforce child support payments'. The church asks because it is each member's responsibility to provide for the chidren that we create and too many divorced parents were thinking they could get away with shirking this responsibility. See the Proclamation to the World on the Family.

[frankenstein]

The church is not doing it to 'enforce child support payments'. The church asks because it is each member's responsibility to provide for the chidren that we create and too many divorced parents were thinking they could get away with shirking this responsibility. See the Proclamation to the World on the Family.

and if you love god you keep his commandment and have no reason to break the laws of man...we can run circles about the prudence of a child support question in the Recommend Interview v. legal presence question in the Country in which one is having the interview. Though "are you honest" would seem to cover the legal presence question, though not as explicit as the child support question.

and though we all are sinners and beggars and not able to cast the first stone, that does not mean we turn a blind eye to sin and aid in anothers commission of sin.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 22 February 2010 - 07:25 PM, said:

Frankenstein:

I used to run human resources in a firm, and I do know the laws in CA. In CA you must show proof of citizenship to get a job. In fact you have to have a social security number and another form of picture ID. Businesses need that to hire someone. What often happens is that, in order to get a job, people will use a fake SS#. Not even a real number. And so as a company we dutifully take out the fed and state taxes. At the end of the year, those who do not have correct SS#'s do not get a refund because they have to verify their SS# as correct.

Most states have a similar program to California's hiring policy. Therefore I submit to you that the end results are that these people do "not" receive a refund.

You obviously did not look Form W7, the IRS issues Individual Tax Identification Numbers to legal resident and illegals alien. The IRS does not report the illegal aliens to DHS. The IRS has internal policy of "don't ask because we do not care" when it comes to processing form W7 with an attached W2 that has the SSN of a newborn Child on it, or the SSN of a dead person. And yes illegals do get tax refunds if they submit Form W7 and the proper paper work.....i have processed thousands of these forms. Go ask your local H&R outfit about form W7, or your local Liberty Tax business about Form W7.

Unfortunately for your point you are incorrect. You may get a tax ID number, but not to work in the US. In fact the tax ID number you are assigned specifically does NOT allow you to work for a wage in the US. The tax ID number on the W7 is generally for those business men who do business in the US. Please note the that it cannot be used to get a job, but can be used if you have a business in which you wish to recognize expenses against profits in the US but are a foriegn entity. This type of form is available in most nations for those who do "work" in the sense of sales as a foreign national.

Note please as I have stated, you must provide an I-9 form with proof which shows you can legally work in the US before you can be paid any type of wage.

Note here:

An ITIN does not authorize work in the U.S. or provide eligibility for Social Security benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit. ITINs are not valid identification outside the tax system.

IRS issues ITINs to help individuals comply with the U.S. tax laws, and to provide a means to efficiently process and account for tax returns and payments for those not eligible for Social Security Numbers.

What is an ITIN used for

Are ITINs valid for work purposes?No. ITINs are for federal income tax purposes only. Getting an ITIN does not change your immigration status or your right to work in the United States.

I have worked in HR for both national and international companies and know what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Sorry to get into the bogged down details, but I have been down this path before so it is relatively easy to discount.

Quote

And when we talk about "obediance to the law", we are often required to ask ourselves to what mercy we are entitled to ourselves? If Christ held us "to the law" how much mercy and compassion would there have been for us? In a sense, every one of us is "illegal", we exist based on the mercy and compassion of the atonement which pays for our illegal acts. We had no right to demand the atonement from Christ, we have sinned and justice would require us to pay the fine, or as one person put it, keep the commandments and there would be no need for compassion. But how many of us have kept the commandments? How many of us have used "amnesty" in terms of repentance? Or is there a difference between the debt we owe Christ, and debt of compassion we offer to others? Does Christs compassion stop with us?

How do we show the love of Christ and simultaneously help ourselves out of a difficult situation?

nice flattering words. what compassion am I to show, visit those in prison, feed the hungry, etc, love my neighbor, Keep the commandments of God, Render unto to Ceasar the things that are Ceasars, follow the law of the law.

I did not mean the words to be flattering of anyone. I suggested a question as to where we place our compassion in Christ. If Christ were to say to us as you have suggested "Keep the commandments of God, Render unto to Ceasar the things that are Ceasars, follow the law of the law", would Christ have carried out the atonement? Would you wish your words spoken to you by Christ? Dare we look upon Him, ans say we have kept the commandments? Or do we beg mercy from justice?

Quote

Immigration, the only thing I am for is keeping criminals and terrorist out, other than that I say let them in. It is a sign of a better country if people are trying to get in and a sign of a worse one were they are trying to leave.

didn't some national figure say "it doesn't make you better because you suck a little less"...or something to that affect? people illegally coming here does not mean anything.

I do not think anyone is dismissing the fact that people are here. I believe the question raised is what compassion do we show? Or should we be devoid of compassion?

all in all what I read from many of you here is an abuse of the word "compassion". illegals are not slaves escaping from plantations, illegals are not Anne Frank subject to extermination orders (if an illegal is and can prove it, then that illegal gets Refugee status or Asylum)

I do not think the word compassion is abused. Anymore than the question (so far avoided), is whether or not we would be comfortable with Christ abandoning us to justice rather than showing mercy and compassion for the atonement. I believe the church itself has reviewed the issue and been fairly clear on the needs of its members.

On a political level, it may be a good idea to significantly strengthen the borders in order to avoid the need for such largess and compassion in the future and as such, the nation of Mexico will of course be forced to confront some of its own short comings. But for those here, especially those members. If you have a temple recommend, I see no reason for me to feel you aren't equally worthy of standing with me both inside and outside the temple. That is my opinion.

Is it simply a question of justice and nothing else? Or is there a place for mercy?

[Jeff K.]

Amen to what you said above as well. Yes, the issue is full of rationalizations that range from words to deeds. It is also highly preferential and monopolized. Those who derive a direct or indirect benefit from illegal immigration, either by association or involvement, are never going to be against it or pay attention to its consequences. But this issue is not only about laws. It's about core beliefs. It's about ethics. It's about the Ten Commandments, the Priesthood, honesty, tithing, right and wrong and the definition of compassion. There are also issues involving statistics, money and the consequences of standing by what's right instead of attempting to turn something that begins with violation of law into something that ignores such violation. It's about the assumption that violation of law is inconsequential or akin to no big deal.

Then let me ask. Are you questioning the church's validity in making room for those members who are here in the US without documentation? When you say

It's about core beliefs. It's about ethics. It's about the Ten Commandments, the Priesthood, honesty, tithing, right and wrong and the definition of compassion.

Do you bring into question the church's stance? The ethics of the church, the church and its take on the ten commandments? The chruch and its stance onf the Priesthood, on tithing, on right and wrong? Because I will tell you that the church allows for accomodation of illegal aliens within the US, going so far as to seek accomodation to allow missionaries who are not citizens to serve in the US without fear of the law.

The leadership of the church is not an uninformed group living in a glass tower without knowledge of the membership. Indeed, I would venture that they are more aware than most of us given the legislative stance they have taken, and going by that lead. In my view, I think they are following the compassion of Christ. Our church leaders have a tendency to do that at times, or so I believe.

[Jeff K.]

and if you love god you keep his commandment and have no reason to break the laws of man...we can run circles about the prudence of a child support question in the Recommend Interview v. legal presence question in the Country in which one is having the interview. Though "are you honest" would seem to cover the legal presence question, though not as explicit as the child support question.

and though we all are sinners and beggars and not able to cast the first stone, that does not mean we turn a blind eye to sin and aid in anothers commission of sin.

One could argue if you love god and keep his commandments, you have no reason for the atonement. Justice is fulfilled.

[Jeff K.]

Yes, the issue is full of rationalizations that range from words to deeds. It is also highly preferential and monopolized. Those who derive a direct or indirect benefit from illegal immigration, either by association or involvement, are never going to be against it or pay attention to its consequences

Alas, I have absolutely nothing to gain from my position. And I am very aware of potential consequences. I am also a strong advocate of a vigorous border which allows no one to cross. But my view is that two issues exist, not one.

[frankenstein]

Unfortunately for your point you are incorrect. You may get a tax ID number, but not to work in the US. In fact the tax ID number you are assigned specifically does NOT allow you to work for a wage in the US. The tax ID number on the W7 is generally for those business men who do business in the US. Please note the that it cannot be used to get a job, but can be used if you have a business in which you wish to recognize expenses against profits in the US but are a foriegn entity. This type of form is available in most nations for those who do "work" in the sense of sales as a foreign national.

let me more explicit in my time with the IRS I processed nearly 10,000 W7 applications and issued that many ITINS. All the W7 applications I processed were submitted with a 1040, where on the tax payer was claiming dependents. Many of these applications and 1040 were submitted with a W2, of which the vast majority had a number in the SSN box. Now think about this, if someone has a SSN they can not get a ITIN, however that person is submitting an application for a ITIN. And since the person is submitting a 1040 and a W2, that means the person HAS WORKED illegally in the United States. as and IRS employee I had access to a Social Security number data base, i would cross check the SSN on the W2 in the data base, and yes I identified dead people, babies only months old, etc.

Also I said nothing of an ITIN and working. I said that illegals get tax benefits. The ITIN number is for processing the 1040 which the majority of what I processed were refunds averaging 1000$.

from the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM)

U.S. Immigration Laws speak of immigrants, non-immigrants, and illegal aliens. U.S. Tax law speaks of resident aliens and nonresident aliens.

• Resident aliens are taxed like U.S. citizens, while nonresident aliens are taxed differently. The tax law applicable to aliens defines residency for tax purposes from how it is defined by immigration law.
• Under the Internal Revenue Code, even illegal aliens (undocumented) are treated as resident aliens if they meet the "Substantial Presence Test" in the tax code. See Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens to determine resident status

substantial presence is not enforced, as described in Pub 519 i had many a discussion with management about this.

[O-Brother]

Now think about this, if someone has a SSN they can not get a ITIN, however that person is submitting an application for a ITIN. And since the person is submitting a 1040 and a W2, that means the person HAS WORKED illegally in the United States. as and IRS employee I had access to a Social Security number data base, i would cross check the SSN on the W2 in the data base, and yes I identified dead people, babies only months old, etc.

That's sick.

@frankenstein:

That is all good information. You're basically saying that rampant fraud has been going on for years with little or no consequences to perpetrators. The fact that fraud is going on daily while people look the other way and pretend it's no big deal is simply amazing. The "honest in ALL our dealings" goes right out of the window, doesn't it? I'm puzzled when I hear misinformed people talking about "compassion" while ignoring the fraudulent activities taking place in the background. After a little bit of research, I learned that in Utah alone, over 20,0000 (Some estimates are as high as 50,000) children under the age of 16 have had their social security numbers misused for illegal employment and even school and credit applications. By the time they get a job, they may have had a credit profile built by someone else. If the credit is derogatory, the id theft victim assumes all the costs involved in credit repair! So when we say "baptize them anyway" we are essentially ignoring or being indifferent about these serious legal, ethical and moral issues, issues that unequivocally violate our core beliefs. Regardless of race, color or national origin, anyone engaged in these types of activities would typically find themselves in jail. Yet, the compassion band wagon looks the other way each and every time. It's one of those things I have had a hard time understanding. I guess I must not be very compassionate. From a religious stand point, this issue has nothing to do with law enforcement and everything to do with misconduct, fraud, lies, sin and disobedience. Some of these acts would qualify most LDS members for excommunication, disfellowship or some form of disciplinary action. For example, let's say a LDS person misappropriates and misuses the social security of a child who also happens to also be LDS. Wouldn't that be called "theft by deception?" How can anyone advance in the Priesthood while still engaged in these types of activities? Can you explain that? I think I'm too dumb to understand how it works.

[Nofear]

Oh, there is no doubt that there is fraud going on. There is not doubt that illegal activity is engaged in. And yes, there are behaviors which are not appropriate for an illegal immigrant member to be engaged in. But, it would be a mistake to suggest that all member illegal immigrants are so engaged in the worst of the abuses. There is definitely immigration reform needed. But, I do not think such reform should put any burden whatsoever on religious institutions to enforce them. I am quite content for the Church to be politically neutral on immigration and to remain agnostic as to the immigration abuses of its membership.

[O-Brother]

Oh, there is no doubt that there is fraud going on. There is not doubt that illegal activity is engaged in. And yes, there are behaviors which are not appropriate for an illegal immigrant member to be engaged in. But, it would be a mistake to suggest that all member illegal immigrants are so engaged in the worst of the abuses. There is definitely immigration reform needed. But, I do not think such reform should put any burden whatsoever on religious institutions to enforce them. I am quite content for the Church to be politically neutral on immigration and to remain agnostic as to the immigration abuses of its membership.

A person cannot be an "illegal" immigrant without violating the law, hence the name illegal. Someone can be "out of status" in regard to a visa and, in most cases, legal counsel can solve that problem. In order to work, certain shenanigans are required, therefore the fraud is bigger than you might think. It's not a matter of the worst or the less damaging abuse, it's abuse, period. Nothing is excusable if it is illegal. The real mistake is thinking otherwise. There is no need for immigration reform. Immigration is not broken. What's broken is illegal immigration. The reform that's needed, then, is in regards to illegal immigration. Religious institutions are not required to enforce any immigration laws. Never have and never will. The issue has nothing to do with law enforcement as per my previous posts, but everything to do with with ethics, core beliefs and not looking the other way in the face of blatant abuse of the Articles of Faith.

It's also about teaching people that it's not OK to be dishonest based on survival or self-improvement needs. That logic would justify all kinds of misdeeds regardless of national origin.

As for neutrality, refer to a few posts back where someone here provided links about the Church's efforts towards solving the problem. There is no neutrality. The Church is putting forth efforts to see if people who are illegal may have their situation straightened out. In fact, when the Utah Legislature was considering provisions for tougher laws, a spokesperson for the Church clearly admonished lawmakers: "Measure twice before you cut" so, as you can see, the Church does voice an influential opinion on matters related to illegal immigration and it wants to make sure that new laws don't hurt people who choose to be in the predicament they're in.

The neutrality you speak of, does not exist. Not too long ago a missionary was arrested upoin his return home because he didn't have the proper immigration documents.

There are so many special interests who derive benefits from illegal immigration that it makes it very hard to straighten things out. There is also a lot of money involved, among other things. That's why this proves to be a difficult issue. It's important to keep in mind that illegal immigration in any form, mild or severe, has never been a victimless issue. Someone is getting defrauded, someone's id is being stolen, someone's social security number is being misused and someone's legitimate place in the American dream is being replaced by someone deriving benefits and privileges he or she is not legally and morally entitled to.

Someone is paying the cost for all this and, someone is making money off of all this. Someone is getting "paid" money to get married and create sham marriages. There is a lot going on when it comes to illegal immigration that most people aren't aware of. That's why it takes someone from the IRS, as posted above, someone with inside information to inform people that this issue is not only about being nice and compassionate. It involves law-breaking, theft, fraud, misappropriation, lying, deception, unauthorized employment, unauthorized earnings and the most damaging, from a religious stand point, the payment of tithing from illegitimate earnings. Not to mention exploitation of "undocumented " workers. There are also serious consequences and risk involved in standing by what's right. Right and wrong has been redefined nowadays, depending on who talk to. As the scriptures say: "Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil..." And guess what? I come from a family of legal, law-abiding immigrants so immigration is nothing new to us. I also speak 3 foreign languages fluently and have traveled to and lived in a few countries including Central, South America and Asia.

[Nofear]

A person cannot be an "illegal" immigrant without violating the law, hence the name illegal.

No argument that illegal immigration is illegal. No argument that crime is involved and there are those that exploit the desperate.

There are so many special interests who derive benefits from illegal immigration ...

Yep, we should definitely deal with the illegal immigration issue. Status quo isn't good enough.

As for neutrality...

So, we deal with immigration. But, the Church, itself, does not have to be involved in the solution. Whatever the solution is, the Church does not appear to want its current interactions with its membership to be impacted by that member's immigration status (that is what I refer to as neutrality, but, alas, the term is imperfect in application). I'm perfectly fine with that and believe it to be a proper solution.

In short, I do not want the following to be contingent on immigration status:

1. Temple attendance.

2. Serving a full-time mission.

3. Paying tithing.

4. Holding most callings (I could see being an illegal immigrant and Bishop as an impediment).

5. Receiving fast offering funds.

6. etc.

And especially, I do not want the Church to be obligated to report illegal immigrants in any way, whatsoever.

Does or would that make the Church pro-illegal immigration? Nope.

[O-Brother]

No argument that illegal immigration is illegal. No argument that crime is involved and there are those that exploit the desperate.

Yep, we should definitely deal with the illegal immigration issue. Status quo isn't good enough.

So, we deal with immigration. But, the Church, itself, does not have to be involved in the solution. Whatever the solution is, the Church does not appear to want its current interactions with its membership to be impacted by that member's immigration status (that is what I refer to as neutrality, but, alas, the term is imperfect in application). I'm perfectly fine with that and believe it to be a proper solution.

In short, I do not want the following to be contingent on immigration status:

1. Temple attendance.

2. Serving a full-time mission.

3. Paying tithing.

4. Holding most callings (I could see being an illegal immigrant and Bishop as an impediment).

5. Receiving fast offering funds.

6. etc.

And especially, I do not want the Church to be obligated to report illegal immigrants in any way, whatsoever.

Does or would that make the Church pro-illegal immigration? Nope.

With all due respect, what you want crashes with many aspects of our doctrine and beliefs in many ways.

#1. Temple attendance - is contingent on honest tithes generated by honest employment. It's also contingent on a truthful temple recommend interview and no unresolved issues with the proper authorities.

#2. A full-time missionary must have his affairs in order to go out and represent the Church. That includes no unresolved issues with the proper authorities.

#3. Tithing should proceed from legitimate employment and honest work.

#4. An illegal alien Bishop, Counselor, Branch President would be a mockery of the sacredness of such offices and the Priesthood. The Lord shall not be mocked!

#5. That's probably OK

And especially, I do not want the Church to be obligated to report illegal immigrants in any way, whatsoever.

Way back in the 80's, many people got reported and deported, NOT by the Church, but by zealous members. In those days, all people had to do is bug the INS, give a name and location and eventually uninformed officers in unmarked cars would should up and demand documentation. People would be arrested, booked, sit in jail for 3 months or so, wait for a trial date and have 3 options: 1. Leave voluntary to avoid formal deportation. 2. Get deported at Government's expense which would basically bar them from re-entering for 10 years and 3. Get married to a U.S. citizen. In fact, in those days, violators of immigration law had less rights than terrorists! You can CFR all this by consulting any attorney that practiced immigration law at the time. Furthermore, schools and universities kept close watch on I-20 documents and foreign student visas, many reporting violators to the INS. Basically, immigration laws were enforced and was under tight control. I personally know stories of good LDS members who got the boot after being turned in by fellow members.

You see, the way you think things should operate negates the law of the land and the sacredness of Priesthood callings. For example, if you or I were consistently guilty of violation of the law of the land, you and I should not be representing the Church as missionaries, have sacred callings, etc. until we made things right. I think that's called repentance and restitution. That would not preclude us from learning the Gospel, participating but not officiating among members, enjoying one another's company, loving one another, etc. The Lord gave Joseph the 13 Articles of Faith for a reason. I think the Lord wanted us to abide by them.

If you have the will to serve the Lord on a mission and you're illegally living in the U.S., you can always opt to serve in your own home country or the land of your parents. The price to pay would be applying for a visa to come back home and the Church could provide assistance with housing, schooling, legal fees, legal counsel through social services, etc. as needed and on a case-by-case basis. That might require a great deal of adjustment, mastering the language, getting a local job, proper documents, going to school, applying for a U.S. tourist visa, getting an attorney and a number of other sacrifices. It would take work but it can be done. True love does happen and marriage to a U.S. citizen could help solve immigration problems. As you can see it is a lot easier to lie than do the work required. In the 80's the Church had strict policies about foreign-born members coming to the U.S. I know so because I got the written memo at the time. The Church was very aware of the legalities involved and that many members would come to the U.S. and never return. Why it cared about that, I am not fully sure. The Church used to pay for airlines tickets for Stake Presidents from foreign countries to attend General Conferences. You can CFR this by calling Murdock Travel to verify this for the 70's and 80's. Well, that no longer happens.

My feeling is that when we condone illegality, we somehow become accomplices in wrong-doing. Sadly, we already have illegal immigrants serving in many Priesthood capacities and even going on full-time missions. I say sadly because it puts them at risk even of deportation if they get caught. Plus, their callings restrict them to U.S. missions or they risk not being able to re-enter the country.

Voluntary violations of law by parents or involuntary violations by their children shouldn't get an automatic waiver. I always thought that Mormonism was about obeying the laws of the land and I still like to believe this until proven that the concept is no longer valid. I have personally written letters of recommendation to help friends legally immigrate to the U.S. many of them are now citizens with U.S. born children. They did it the right way. It wasn't easy and they had no geographic advantage by proximity to U.S. borders. They are good, law-abiding Mormons. The Lord does bless people that do things right. I have seen people return to their home countries just to do the right thing and later get visas, get married to U.S. citizens (genuine love) and end up getting their green cards and U.S. citizenship the right way.

Nothing is impossible for the Lord. But cheating is not the way to go about it, especially if a person believes in the religion and what it stands for. I would even propose a special program to help LDS Illegal immigrants with legal counsel, housing ,education, work, etc. in THEIR home countries so they could do everything legally possible to return with honor, so to speak. If it were up to me, I wouldn't be opposed to foregoing certain monetary investments in order to assist the thousands of LDS members who are in violation of immigration law. But I wouldn't tell them it's OK to be doing what they're doing or look the other way or try to find ways to justify and rationalize illegal activity and presence. Should we report people to ICE? Of course not! Besides, if if we did, ICE wouldn't do anything about it. That's another story.

I know people who are illegal immigrants. They're good people and it's sad that their decisions put them in the situation they're facing. It's also a shame that only parts of our borders are patrolled and it's a shame that we created a situation that allows illegal immigration to flourish out of control. What would Jesus do? Bring people across the border and violate the laws of the land? Since the Lord is no respecter of persons, He would need to bring the whole world here and not just one particular ethnic group, right? Would He say that it's OK to use someone else's social security number to work and go to school? What do you think?

[Nofear]

With all due respect, what you want crashes with many aspects of our doctrine and beliefs in many ways.

Though that may be your opinion, it appears that the Quorum of the Twelve has not acted in a way to show agreement with that opinion. We can only speculate on the cause (*).

1. Pragmatic, worldly concerns (more members, more tithing, weeee)

2. Disagree with your doctrinal condemnation

3. Agree with the doctrinal condemnation but believe that mitigating factors out weigh the condemnation (so much so as to not disqualify them from temple attendance).

I'm personally inclined more towards #3 or #2.

* It would be fun if somebody wrote the office of the First Presidency and reported the response. I would be quite interested in it.

[O-Brother]

Though that may be your opinion, it appears that the Quorum of the Twelve has not acted in a way to show agreement with that opinion. We can only speculate on the cause (*).

1. Pragmatic, worldly concerns (more members, more tithing, weeee)

2. Disagree with your doctrinal condemnation

3. Agree with the doctrinal condemnation but believe that mitigating factors out weigh the condemnation (so much so as to not disqualify them from temple attendance).

I'm personally inclined more towards #3 or #2.

* It would be fun if somebody wrote the office of the First Presidency and reported the response. I would be quite interested in it.

My opinion shouldn't override anyone else's although millions of people seem to share similar points of view. If someone wrote the office of the FP, the answer might be that immigration issues are up to immigration authorities. So if that someone writes about the principles that we believe in and how they contrast with illegal activities, then the answer would be interesting indeed. I am a little slow but I think I'm starting to understand what's going on. I hope and pray that I am wrong in my assumptions.

I am aware of real fiscal damages caused by illegal immigration that are serious enough to make me and others concerned. If illegal immigration didn't affect society in general, it might not be worth to bother with but it's gotten so out of hand that every single taxpayer is affected by it. Now that illegal immigration has also penetrated the Church, it's natural for some of us to wonder what it may lead to if an amnesty isn't provided any time soon and the effects it might have on certain LDS principles and precepts.

From the looks of things, it seems to me that illegal immigration is actually encouraged, sustained, condoned, invited to stay and grow. It might have something to do with globalism, among many other possibilities. But I think in due time, we will know why things are the way they are and then it all will make perfect sense. The FP likely knows something that we don't and they may have a greater vision about the whole plan that ordinary people like myself and others can't see or understand.

[Nofear]

I am a little slow but I think I'm starting to understand what's going on. I hope and pray that I am wrong in my assumptions. ... The FP likely knows something that we don't and they may have a greater vision about the whole plan that ordinary people like myself and others can't see or understand.

What's your theory (I'm yet slower still )?

[The Nehor]

I don't know, I think our faith has a long and glorious history of being illegal immigrants and vagrants.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob wandered through lands that weren't theirs making often unfavorable deals to survive and get the food they needed.

Moses led his people to a new land trespassing through other lands, illegally immigrating, and then taking over the government.

Our pioneer ancestors entered then Mexico (Utah) without permission and settled down on land not theirs.

Hmmmmmmmmm........