Lds Church Issues New Statement Re: Immigration

[Biz]

rcrocket / BCSpace

Thanks for both of your responses to my post, both helped provide good insights for me. rcrocket, I like your blog and BCSpace I like the links you have as part of your signature. What do both of your think about this: I am aware of a missionary who just entered the mission that oversees the area I live. He was sent directly into the field (driven down by his parents) because the Church knew that he was illegal and in doing the proper work to go to the Provo MTC his status as illegal could led to him being deported. Is this obeying the laws of the land, or being honest with your fellowmen?

Biz

[Jeff K.]

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.

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.

You really shouldn't talk about the Berlin Wall to someone who grew up there, and then also tell them it was ineffective. Not too many Berliners will believe you.

When you state that West Germans could travel freely to East Germany, I would tell you that was ONLY because the East German government allowed it. And if need be they could also stop it. They controlled that immigration tightly. As to tunnelers going under the wall. Given the number of East Germans wishing to cross the Berling Wall one would think the ground underneath was a warren of tunnels (unless of course you believe East Germans did not want to leave, they did want to leave, by the tens of thousands). So was there a warren of tunnels underneath the wall? No.

"Altogether, we have counted 71 tunnel projects and 20 per cent of those were successful," said Dietmar Arnold, the head of the Berlin Underworlds Association, which conducts the tours and works on opening more subterranean structures to the public. "Most tunnels were dug from the West to the East, often by men who had already fled to the West and who were now trying to get the rest of their families out of East Germany," Mr Arnold told visitors recently.

Roughly 14 successful tunnels. The most successful had around 100 people cross in the 28 year history. Lets look at it another way....

Before the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration.[3] During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.

Secret tunnels that brought freedom

Berlin Wall

I saw two such escapes. One was successful, the other alas was not.

"T

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

True but immaterial.

Actually very material. Its effectiveness was maintained until the government collapsed, since we have shown how effective it was (3.5 million crossing before the wall was raised to a paltry few hundred after), we see that it did indeed hold back one population from crossing into another. And it was the choice of the government to decide the effectiveness and lethality of the wall.

The Berlin was was incredibly effective.

Regarding the Great Wall

The Great Wall of China is a series of stone and earthen fortifications in northern China, built originally to protect the northern borders of the Chinese Empire against intrusions by various nomadic groups. Several walls have been built since the 5th century BC that are referred to collectively as the Great Wall, which has been rebuilt and maintained from the 5th century BC through the 16th century. One of the most famous is the wall built between 220–206 BC by the first Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang. Little of that wall remains; the majority of the existing wall was built during the Ming Dynasty.

The original building of the wall you are referring to was for the small warring states, its purpose was miliatry. As China's empire expanded, and the inner walls of the empire were reduced the outer walls were expanded to keep out enemy or potential enemy groups. In both of these it is a miltiary construct. You and I both agree the effectiveness was questionable and even ineffective. But it was so because like the Maginot line, as a defensive weapon it proved limited in only deterring a direct force and not a flanking one.

"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

.

Actually it does, you simply don't understand the issue with the 14th Amendment.

But don't take my word for it....

Q67. "Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees its citizens an education? My uncle is being forced to pay for summer school for his children by the NYC Board of Education. Unless he pays, my cousins are going to have to repeat the grade. I see this as an attack on the lower classes, who will obviously have a problem paying for their 'public school' education."

A. There is no enumerated constitutional right to an education. A state constitution may include such a right, but I doubt that being required to pay for education would be considered a violation of that right. The problem with something like your uncle's situation is that, to be blunt, if a child does not apply himself enough during the school year to pass from one grade to the next, is it the school's responsibility to pay for that child to have remedial classes to move along? I suspect not; after all, if your uncle does not wish to pay, the kids could just repeat the grade for free.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html

What you are probably referring to is the equal protection clause in which all persons must be treated equally under the law within their jurisdiction. Like the drivers licesnse requirement of social security numbers or immunization shots, the state may require the school to ask for social security numbers in order to teach the student.

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.

Nor does it allow parents to become citizens just because their children are citizens. That was my point regarding the 14th amendment. My point was that if parents are not citizens then the state need not make them so just because their child is born within the borders of this nation. The child of course can, in the future decide its citizenship if it so chooses to.

[BCSpace]

I am aware of a missionary who just entered the mission that oversees the area I live. He was sent directly into the field (driven down by his parents) because the Church knew that he was illegal and in doing the proper work to go to the Provo MTC his status as illegal could led to him being deported. Is this obeying the laws of the land, or being honest with your fellowmen?

Not knowing all the details, it's difficult to speak to. When did the Church know he was illegal? As part of the missionary preparation process, the candidate goes over the Missionary Handbook which, among other things, includes a commitment to obey local laws and customs. Quite hypocritical in my book to be committed to obeying local laws in the field when not so committed at home and I am certain many Bishops feel that way too.

[Biz]

Not knowing all the details, it's difficult to speak to. When did the Church know he was illegal? As part of the missionary preparation process, the candidate goes over the Missionary Handbook which, among other things, includes a commitment to obey local laws and customs. Quite hypocritical in my book to be committed to obeying local laws in the field when not so committed at home and I am certain many Bishops feel that way too.

I do not know all of the details myself. What I do know is in my ward we have the AP's and I at the time was the ward mission leader (conversation was about 7 weeks ago). One of the Elders was from Arizona and was called Spanish speaking where we are. Both of us are sensitive to immigration issues but recognize it is a major problem. As such we have had a few discussions about immigration. With that background in place during a dinner appointment he informed me of the exact scenario that I told you of (that an illegal missionary was called Spanish speaking and was coming to the field 'by his parent dropping him off' to be trained 'in field' instead of the MTC because if he went to the MTC he would possibly be subject to deportation.)

He thought it was messed up, but as a missionary of course he valued missionaries and conversion over the law so to speak and if its ok with the Prophet it was ok by him. Since the Elder was an AP and Spanish speaking he was directly involved in the leadership aspect of the scenario. This mission has downsized quite a bit due to low baptism, so more Elders was better than less Elders in his view. In my view it is messed up.

Biz

[Bob Crockett]

rcrocket / BCSpace

Thanks for both of your responses to my post, both helped provide good insights for me. rcrocket, I like your blog and BCSpace I like the links you have as part of your signature. What do both of your think about this: I am aware of a missionary who just entered the mission that oversees the area I live. He was sent directly into the field (driven down by his parents) because the Church knew that he was illegal and in doing the proper work to go to the Provo MTC his status as illegal could led to him being deported. Is this obeying the laws of the land, or being honest with your fellowmen?

Biz

What you describe happens all the time. I'm surprised that members don't generally know that.

And what you describe is not accurate: "in doing the proper work to go to the Provo MTC his status as illegal could le[a]d to him being deported." What the church does or does not do with paper work for domestic missionaries will not lead to people being deported. The fellow just didn't have a driver's license to get on a plane.

When the Church made the decision in 1976 or so to permit the baptism of illegal aliens and to permit such to serve in leadership positions, then and there the Church made the decision that the law was not malum in se. As such we shouldn't be like BCspace and suggest that such persons who are baptized, and who do serve, are hypocrites. BCspace needs to take up his objections to the Church with his bishop, stake president and area authorities rather than post anonymous criticisms of church policy.

[Biz]

What you describe happens all the time. I'm surprised that members don't generally know that.

And what you describe is not accurate: "in doing the proper work to go to the Provo MTC his status as illegal could le[a]d to him being deported." What the church does or does not do with paper work for domestic missionaries will not lead to people being deported. The fellow just didn't have a driver's license to get on a plane.

When the Church made the decision in 1976 or so to permit the baptism of illegal aliens and to permit such to serve in leadership positions, then and there the Church made the decision that the law was not malum in se. As such we shouldn't be like BCspace and suggest that such persons who are baptized, and who do serve, are hypocrites. BCspace needs to take up his objections to the Church with his bishop, stake president and area authorities rather than post anonymous criticisms of church policy.

What you said resonates with what the Elders told me. But still what I have said would still be correct, the fact that getting a drivers license in order to fly to the MTC would be 'proper' work necessary to get to the Provo MTC that could possibly led to his deportation. In the likely response I will receive from my last post I will say that I think it is messed up because depending on the knowledge of the individual this walks a fine line regarding questions of Honesty. Well, so does so many other things. I understand that, and it only furthers the fact that this is a very very complex issue. But for me personally I think that it is messed up. However, I understand it will always be a individual inquiry and that the Bishop/Stake President in authority has that discretion and not me. But I am still able to voice my opinion that in general I think the Church is walking a very fine line.

Biz

Edited June 11, 2011 by Biz

[Bob Crockett]

What you said resonates with what the Elders told me. But still what I have said would still be correct, the fact that getting a drivers license in order to fly to the MTC would be 'proper' work necessary to get to the Provo MTC that could possibly led to his deportation. In the likely response I will receive from my last post I will say that I think it is messed up because depending on the knowledge of the individual this walks a fine line regarding questions of Honesty. Well, so does so many other things. I understand that, and it only furthers the fact that this is a very very complex issue. But for me personally I think that it is messed up. However, I understand it will always be a individual inquiry and that the Bishop/Stake President in authority has that discretion and not me. But I am still able to voice my opinion that in general I think the Church is walking a very fine line.

Biz

Believe me. He just didn't have a driver's license. The church does not require missionaries who serve domestically to have government id or passports.

[BCSpace]

As such

The Church is still not knowingly calling illegal immigrants to positions or missions in my region. There have even been TR's denied. There is no written policy that I know of, but most Bishops and SPs here seem to be judging along the same lines I have presented to you. Don't ask don't tell and if it is known, it gets fixed before anything else can happen.

we shouldn't be like BCspace and suggest that such persons who are baptized, and who do serve, are hypocrites.

I think we should (1 Cor 6:2).

BCspace needs to take up his objections to the Church with his bishop, stake president and area authorities rather than post anonymous criticisms of church policy

The only policy objections I have so far is the Church comming out against basing the MX missile in Utah, against nuclear waste in Utah, and the way it handles some Scouting issues. And I actually have taken these up with our regional reps and GA's except the MX missile basing concern because I was too young then to know who to take it up with or how.

But I am still able to voice my opinion that in general I think the Church is walking a very fine line.

It is.

What many people don't understand about how the the Church deals with public controversy is that it's doctrine and policy rarely change, and when there is a perception that it has, all that has happened is the Church has merely presented a different side of same coin without changing anything at all.

It has to be this way in an ever divergent world else the pool of potential converts is much reduced. That is why wheat with the tares is the operating principle. That is why the right can still legislate in Utah without thinking they are in opposition to the Church and why the left feels (erroneously) all at the same time.

Consider the homosexual issue. Gays must still repent in the Church if they want to get a TR and the Church is still in opposition to gay marriage despite turning a different side (kinder gentler) of the same coin (kinder gentler has always been part of the doctrine and policy anyway) to face the controversy. It's the same with the immigration issue.

Edited June 11, 2011 by BCSpace

[Anijen]

I am in full agreement with all of rcrockets posts in this thread. It appears we have quite a bit in common on this issue, and what he has written on immigration is exactly how I see it and now it seems it is clear how the church views it as well.

[BCSpace]

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.

This actually seems to be in direct opposition to the Church's position:

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.

And I have to go with the Church on this one because true capitalism is not devoid of regulation, which is the government's function in true free market capitalism.

Edited June 11, 2011 by BCSpace

[HeatherAnn]

...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...

Illegal immigrants tend to take jobs of cheap labor, primarily because they lack the ability to speak English.

The church, by creating havens of language wards, (which is beautiful culturally, however - )

- is contributing to this problem, by giving many people no reason to learn English.

They don't need it at work, they don't need it at church or with their friends there,

so they live in the US many years without knowing much English, & this limits them & our country.

Why does the church continue to create more & more language wards in the US?

[Calm]

Illegal immigrants tend to take jobs of cheap labor, primarily because they lack the ability to speak English.

The church, by creating havens of language wards, (which is beautiful culturally, however - )

- is contributing to this problem, by giving many people no reason to learn English.

They don't need it at work, they don't need it at church or with their friends there,

so they live in the US many years without knowing much English, & this limits them & our country.

Why does the church continue to create more & more language wards in the US?

The Church also runs literacy classes through the Relief Society and missionaries, so I think it is trying to meet both needs of learning to adapt to their new society and being able to feel like they belong and can contribute to their ward family.

[HeatherAnn]

The Church also runs literacy classes through the Relief Society and missionaries, so I think it is trying to meet both needs of learning to adapt to their new society and being able to feel like they belong and can contribute to their ward family.

I realize the church offers ESL classes & that's good. However, it would be more beneficial if the church would continue to offer such classes, while only having English-speaking wards in the US.

I used to teach ESL & know that many people are working 2 jobs & are so exhausted, they don't feel like going to class at the end of a long day. Yet, I admire those who do! I know from when I've subbed for church "Daily Dose" ESL classes, very few come to the classes. I realize it's difficult to learn a new language & a new culture, & to put up with subtle & blunt prejudice, but segregation is not the answer.

Moreover, to learn a language best, one is immersed in it, not just taking a class.

If these good members were to integrate into English-speaking wards, ALL would benefit.

English-speaking ward members would learn to be more loving & tolerant of those who are different from them.

Non-speaking ward members would be more motivated to learn the language & also how to function best in this society.

[HeatherAnn]

Non-speaking ward members would be more motivated to learn the language & also how to function best in this society.

ha ha - I meant "Non-English Speaking."

Well, cute little non-speaking baby ward members are surely motivated to learn the language...

Talking Twin Babies - Part 2

[Calm]

I realize the church offers ESL classes & that's good. However, it would be more beneficial if the church would continue to offer such classes, while only having English-speaking wards in the US.

I used to teach ESL & know that many people are working 2 jobs & are so exhausted, they don't feel like going to class at the end of a long day. Yet, I admire those who do! I know from when I've subbed for church "Daily Dose" ESL classes, very few come to the classes. I realize it's difficult to learn a new language & a new culture, & to put up with subtle & blunt prejudice, but segregation is not the answer.

Moreover, to learn a language best, one is immersed in it, not just taking a class.

If these good members were to integrate into English-speaking wards, ALL would benefit.

English-speaking ward members would learn to be more loving & tolerant of those who are different from them.

Non-speaking ward members would be more motivated to learn the language & also how to function best in this society.

One day a week for a couple of hours is not going to "immerse" anyone in a language. And if they don't speak English, they aren't going to be called as teachers or leaders in an English only ward so they will not be likely to participate outside of Sunday...if they participate then.

Rather than English only, I think they might have mixed language wards so that some of the talks are in one language while the other is in English, kids are taught in English in their Primary classes though kids with little English might have a transition class as it's important to kids---especially during teen years---as it is so easy for kids to become alienated even when they've felt like they've belonged. Mixed language wards would also help English speakers relate a bit more to how nonEnglish speakers have to learn how to function in strange waters.

Edited June 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[HeatherAnn]

One day a week for a couple of hours is not going to "immerse" anyone in a language. And if they don't speak English, they aren't going to be called as teachers or leaders in an English only ward so they will not be likely to participate outside of Sunday...if they participate then.

Are you familiar what it means to be an active member of the LDS church? It's definitely not just a couple of hours one day a week!

One's life is often focused around the ward...

Visiting Teaching, Home Teaching, Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School, Priesthood & Relief Society meetings,

Relief Society enrichment activities, Relief Society service projects including serving each other when needs arise,

Elder's Quorum activities, Ward parties/activities, Scouts, Young Men/Young Women, Primary activities,

Ward Leader interviews or visits, Ward temple night, leadership or planning meetings...

Through all of this, many members' make friends with each other & hang out other times, besides ward functions.

This is immersion! Gospel immersion - in whatever language the church indicates by making it an English or Non-English-Speaking ward.

And what better way to be motivated to learn a language, the gospel & to get to know others, than to jump in & start serving?

[Calm]

Are you familiar what it means to be an active member of the LDS church? It's definitely not just a couple of hours one day a week!

Yes, I've been a member since birth and have lived in multiple countries with multiple languages.

So I can definitely say it depends on where one is and what one's job in the Church is. As a child, it amounted to three hours on Sunday (SS in the morning, SM in the afternoon) and an hour and a half on a weekday for Primary...not even that now, though there is Scouts for boys and Achievement Days for girls (though that is every other week) for an hour. For youth it amounted to three hours on Sunday, 1 1/2 hours a night a week for Mutual/YM/YW. Seminary when we lived close enough to go, Independent Study Seminary when we didn't...the latter wouldn't be all that great for immersion.

When we lived in Russia, church was only a couple of hours a week with one week every couple of months with one hour or two one evening for RS. VT was pretty nonexistent though we got together with other members for fun quite a bit. I was called as a Primary teacher, but no Visiting Teaching as it would have been dangerous for me to travel around the city on my own to make the connections. In Utah, OTOH, I could do something with Church members practically every day in some organized activity.

We attempted to visit teach and fellowship a woman who spoke only German and Farsi when I lived in Canada. It didn't last very long, she started attending a nonLDS church where she could speak with others without struggling. People don't go to church so they can feel out of place or less than those around them. We found that pretty common in Canada as we lived in an area with a huge immigration population (people moved into the area when newly immigrated, then moved out a few years later). My daughter went to a school that was 2/3 French Immersion and one third English for the local neighbourhood kids. A third of those "English speakers" were actually immigrants. I spent many days doing volunteer work reading with her classmates to help them pick up English faster. We held missionary appointments in our home for Chinese speaking neighbours. I tutored after school the children of Korean friends.

Again leaders are unlikely to be called if they can't communicate well with those they teach or lead. VTs and hometeachers are probably the biggest exception, but I would not be surprised to find when a nonEnglish speaker is coupled with an English speaking partner to visit English speakers that the most common result is the nonEnglish speaking partner ends up not going all that often and not participating in the conversation when there. I've seen it happen. So while listing all those hours of Church, you must take into consideration how likely a nonEnglish speaker is going to hold one of them in an English ward. My experience says very unlikely.

I highly doubt the Church made the decision to create more nonEnglish wards without doing extensive studies of activity rates and other things that affect not only church participation but members' overall quality of life.

The purpose of Church is not to teach language literacy, but to provide a place to share the gospel and promote a community spiritual experience. If this can include aid in learning a language, wonderful, but it is not one of the primary goals of the Church.

Edited June 13, 2011 by calmoriah

[Jeff K.]

I realize the church offers ESL classes & that's good. However, it would be more beneficial if the church would continue to offer such classes, while only having English-speaking wards in the US.

I used to teach ESL & know that many people are working 2 jobs & are so exhausted, they don't feel like going to class at the end of a long day. Yet, I admire those who do! I know from when I've subbed for church "Daily Dose" ESL classes, very few come to the classes. I realize it's difficult to learn a new language & a new culture, & to put up with subtle & blunt prejudice, but segregation is not the answer.

Moreover, to learn a language best, one is immersed in it, not just taking a class.

If these good members were to integrate into English-speaking wards, ALL would benefit.

English-speaking ward members would learn to be more loving & tolerant of those who are different from them.

Non-speaking ward members would be more motivated to learn the language & also how to function best in this society.

There is some integration going on. I live and work with one of the largest Latino communities in the United States here in Orange County. I note the Spanish speaking wards are part of the geographic wards and I believe the Spanish speaking wards are primarily for the first generation since their children speak English fully. I also taught english for the spanish speaking ward in our area and did so for some time. It is much harder for the older individuals to learn, but they try very hard.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Jeff K.

[HeatherAnn]

Calmoriah,

Thanks for sharing such interesting experiences you've had around the world!

It does depend on the location & calling - with how involved one is in the ward.

I understand that the goal of the church is not literacy... it's love. God is love.

Love is striving for what's the higher good for ourselves & others.

Jeff,

That's good to know that some integration is going on. I truly believe it all will benefit from it.

That's true that the youth pick up language much easier & faster than those older.

By the way... When I was young, when we'd go to the beach, we'd always go to either Huntington or Newport.

[chileanseabass]

We have had a number of "immigration status" issues in our ward. We have about 20 hispanic members who attend an english speaking family ward, along with a set of spanish speaking missionaries. The ward provides headsets for them, and the Elders translate, but this has caused a lot problems with some of the local members who think the hispanics should not be given any "preferrential" treatment. There is a spanish branch about 40 minutes away, but it is in another stake, and the members have been counselled by stake leaders to attend the ward in which they live. They have their own RS, SS, and PH meetings in Spanish, but none of our ward leadership speaks the language. The majority of the ward refuses to accept the spanish speaking members, and make few efforts to do so.

The biggest problems with them arose when seeking temple recommends, priesthood advancement, and baptisms. Our bishop asked both the stake and Salt Lake for guidance on how to give a temple recommend to someone who is living here illegally. He was told by both (this was a little over a year ago), to use his own judgement. He decided that as long as they paid taxes on their wages (and met all the other chruch mandated qualifications), he would allow them to get recommends, advance, etc. He didn't care how they did it, they just had to prove that they paid their taxes.

What do you folks make of this? I'm torn, as I'm a fluent spanish speaker and served a mission in Chile, so I've become good friends with the hispanics, one of the few ward members to do so.

[Jeff K.]

Did my thesis on Chilean economics, loved the country and people. Can't say enough good things about Chile.

As to the issue of temple recommends the church is very clear that we should not consider their legal status as an issue for witholding temple ordinances. I don't have the link with me, but I believe the issue is straightforward.

[Ariarates]

the church is very clear that we should not consider their legal status as an issue for witholding temple ordinances

Or any other ordinances. Which is a good thing because about the only converts we get over here in western Europe are aliens - legal and illegal.

[chileanseabass]

Did my thesis on Chilean economics, loved the country and people. Can't say enough good things about Chile.

As to the issue of temple recommends the church is very clear that we should not consider their legal status as an issue for witholding temple ordinances. I don't have the link with me, but I believe the issue is straightforward.

Chile is as good as it gets. I'm always looking for excuses to move back. lol

I thought that was the case as well, however I had a long meeting with my bishop who told me that he received no guidance from the stake or Salt Lake, and said it was up to him to decide someone's worthiness, at which time he prayed and fasted about it and felt that tax paying status was to be the determining factor.

At one point in time we had an Elder in our ward who admitted to me he was living illegally in the US with his sister (also a member married to an American) before going on his mission. His mom died and his brother was seriously injured while he was in our ward, and even though he was told he could go back to visit, he couldn't because of his status.

[Kiviuq]

The Church’s statement succinctly summarized the issue of what it calls a “challenging problem”. IMO, the statement doesn’t offer any ideas for a resolution but does seem to favor a “reverence to family” over the “commitment to law."

[Scott Gordon]

There is a very interesting Blog discussion on this here: http://www.fairblog.org/2011/06/12/immigration-and-the-good-samaritan-by-ben-mcguire/

Some of our Attorneys here might be interested in it.